Rockville Nursing Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 959 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

ROCKVILLE NURSING CENTER 959
Isaac Putterman , d/b/a Rockville Nursing Center and
Local 1115, Nursing Home , Hospital , Senior
Citizens Hotel Union and Guild of Professional,
Technical and Office Employees, Local 1199, Drug
& Hospital Union , RWDSU, AFL-CIO, Party to
the Contract
Guild of Professional , Technical and Office Employ-
ees, Local 1199, Drug & Hospital Union , RWDSU,
AFL-CIO ( Isaac Putterman , d/b/a Rockville
Nursing Center) and Local 1115 , Nursing Home,
Hospital , Senior Citizens Hotel Union and Isaac
Putterman , d/b/a Rockville Nursing Center, Party
to the Contract . Cases 29-CA-1963 and
29-CB-749
October 27, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On March 30, 1971, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in and
were engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent Rockville and Respondent
Union filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and supporting briefs, and the General
Counsel and Charging Party filed answering briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
The Trial Examiner concluded that the issuance of a
bargaining order was necessary in this case because of
the widespread and flagrant nature of Respondent
Rockville's conduct which precluded the holding of a
fair election. We agree. We believe, however, that an
amplification of the Trial Examiner's rationale for the
conclusion that a bargaining order is necessary is
warranted.
The record discloses that in December 1969, when
Respondent Rockville had not yet hired a representa-
tive number of employees, and at a time when
Respondent Union had not obtained authority from
any employees to represent them, Respondent Rock-
ville accorded recognition to the Respondent Union
as collective-bargaining representative of its employ-
ees. On January 9, 1970, at a time when Respondent
Union had obtained the authorization card of only
one employee, Respondent Rockville executed a
collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent
Union. Thereafter, in the months of January, Febru-
ary, and March, 1970, Respondent Rockville attempt-
ed to obtain union authorization cards for Respon-
dent Union through threats of discharge and other
reprisals by its supervisory personnel who also
ordered employees to attend a union meeting held on
March 24 by Respondent Union on company time
and premises. And in March 1970, Respondent
Rockville began the deduction of union dues on
behalf of Respondent Union.
Despite this campaign on the part of Respondent
Rockville to establish Respondent Union as collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees, the
Charging Party, Local 1115, was able to secure, by
March 31, 1970, the signed authorization cards of 58
of the 74 employees then employed by Respondent
Rockville. On that day Local 1115 made its demand
that it be recognized as collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees and called a strike of the
employees to demonstrate its strength to Respondent
Rockville. But Respondent Rockville refused to check
the cards offered by Local 1115's business agent, told
him that Respondent Rockville already had a union,
and then threatened him with arrest for trespassing on
private property although he was at the nursing home
at Respondent Rockville's invitation. No other reply
to Local 1115's demand for bargaining was ever made
by Respondent Rockville.
Although thus well aware of the claim of Local 1115
to the allegiance of its employees, Respondent
Rockville continued its efforts to install the Respon-
dent Union as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees regardless of their wishes. In
April and May 1970, its supervisory employees again
urged and directed the employees to attend meetings
of Respondent Union held on company premises and
company time, at which meetings Respondent Union
threatened the employees with discharge if they did
not sign cards authorizing Respondent Union to
represent them. Respondent Rockville continued to
deduct dues on behalf of the Respondent Union in
May, June, July, and August, 1970. And on May 19,
193 NLRB No. 149
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1970, Respondent Rockville again demonstrated its
support and recognition of Respondent Union by
executing a supplemental agreement, modifying the
admittedly illegal agreement of January 9, by granting
concessions to Respondent Union.
The above compendium of unfair labor practices,
set forth in greater detail in the Trial Examiner's
Decision, evinces a total disregard by Respondent
Rockville of the right of employees to select their own
collective-bargaining agent without interference from
their Employer. Even before the employees were
hired, Respondent Rockville chose their collective-
bargaining agent for them. At a time when only one
employee had signed one of Respondent Union's
authorization cards it executed a collective-bargain-
ing agreement with Respondent Union. Thereafter it
utilized every means at its disposal, short of outright
discharge, to force the employees to accept its choice
of bargaining agent. Even after the employees had
designated Local 1115 as their agent, and openly
displayed their adherence to that organization,
Respondent Rockville continued its unlawful con-
duct. Indeed, it intensified its effort to force the
employees to accept Respondent Union. Only the
Board's injunctive action in September 1970 halted
Respondent Rockville's flagrant violations of the Act.
In setting guidelines for the issuance of bargaining
orders by the Board where the union's right to
represent employees is based on the union's securing
authorization cards from a majority of the employees
the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing
Company, 395 U.S. 575, 614-615, stated that a
bargaining order should issue "[i]f the Board finds
that the possibility of erasing the effects of past
practices and of ensuring a fair election (or a fair
rerun) by the use of traditional remedies, though
present, is slight and that employee sentiment once
expressed through cards would, on balance, be better
protected by a bargaining order." We are convinced
that none of the traditional remedies available to the
Board is sufficient to erase the effect of Respondent
Rockville's virulent 9-month campaign to preclude
Local 1115 from becoming the collective-bargaining
agent and to force the employees to accept Respon-
dent Union. We deem it highly unlikely that the use of
such remedies would enable us to hold a fair election.
Accordingly, as the record establishes that Local 1115
had secured valid authorization cards from a majority
of the employees at the time it requested recognition,
we find that by refusing Local 1115's request and
engaging in the unfair labor practices found herein
Respondent Rockville violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the Act and that an order requiring Respondent
Rockville to recognize and bargain with Local 1115 is
necessary to remedy these violations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondent Rockville, Isaac Putterman , d/b/a Rock-
ville Nursing Center, Rockville Center, New York, its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns, and Respon-
dent Union, Guild of Professional , Technical and
Office Employees, Local 1199, Drug & Hospital
Union, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, its officers , representa-
tives, and agents, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERRY B. STONE, Trial Examiner: This proceeding under
Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , was tried pursuant to due notice on September
28, 29, 30, October 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 21, 28, and 29, 1970.
The charge and amended charge in Case 29-CA-1963
were filed on March 30, 1970, and April 10, 1970,
respectively. The charge in Case 29-CB-749 was filed on
March 30, 1970. The complaint in this matter was issued on
August 10, 1970.
The issues in this case concern whether or not there has
been conduct of respective Respondents violative of
Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act and of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. The issues concern whether
Local 1199 has been improperly recognized and assisted,
whether Local 1199 has been improperly denied recogni-
tion or bargaining rights, and whether employees have had
their rights interfered with or restrained by the above and
other conduct of the Respondents.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate
in the proceeding, and briefs filed by the General Counsel
and the Respondents have been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of witnesses , I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT'
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Isaac Putterman , an individual , is, and has been at all
' The findings of fact herein , unless otherwise indicated , are based upon
the pleadings and admissions therein, stipulations or statements of counsel
narrowing the issues , upon credited uncontradicted testimony of witnesses,
or the exhibits in the record The General Counsel's letter motion of
December 4, 1970, and accompanying documents , Respondent 's briefs
with reference thereto , and the record in this case have been considered
Such motion is hereby marked as TX Exh 6 and is hereby received into the
record, for the limited purpose of revealing that as of September 1, 1970, a
consented - to course of required conduct had been ordered , not based upon
litigated or admitted findings of misconduct The General Counsel's
motion to correct the record, dated January 28, 1971, is marked as TX Exh.
7, and upon due consideration is granted and received into the record The
record at p 1570 of the transcript , 1 20, is corrected by deleting the words
"Mr Ziskm" and substituting therefor the words "Trial Examiner" The
record at p 1576, 1 15, is corrected by deleting the word "prepared" and
substituting therefor the word "inclined." The record at p 628, 1 12, is
corrected by deleting the words "Trial Examiner" and substituting therefor
the words "Mr Weinstock "
ROCKVILLE NURSING CENTER 961
times material herein, an individual proprietor doing
business under the trade name and style of Rockville
Nursing Center.2
At all times material herein, Respondent Rockville has
maintained its principal office and place of business at 41
Main Avenue, in the Town of Rockville Centre, County of
Nassau, State of New York, herein sometimes called the
Nursing Center, where it is, and has been at all times
material herein, continuously engaged in providing postop-
erative and convalescent care for infirm and aged persons.
Since on or about December 9, 1969, when Respondent
Rockville commenced operations at the Nursing Center, to
August 10, 1970, Respondent Rockville, in tht, course and
conduct of said operations, has derived gross revenues
therefrom at an annual rate in excess of $100,000.
During this same period, Respondent Rockville, in the
course and conduct of its business, purchased and caused
to be transported and delivered to its Nursing Center
pharmaceutical products and other goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and delivered
to its Nursing Center in interstate commerce directly from
States of the United States other than the State in which it is
located.
Based upon the foregoing, and as conceded by Respon-
dents, it is concluded and found that Respondent Rockville
is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act
11. FHE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Guild of Professional, Technical and Office Employees,
Local 1199, Drug & Hospital Union, RWDSU, AFL-CIO,
is and has been at all times material herein a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.3
The pleadings place in issue the status of the Charging
Party (Local 1115, Nursing Home, Hospital, Senior
Citizens Hotel Union) 4 as a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The credited testimony
of Al DeLaurentis, the exhibits relating to Local 1115's
contracts with other employees, and Local 1115's constitu-
tion, in composite effect, overwhelmingly establish that
Local 1115 exists for the purposes set forth in Section 2(5)
of the Act and represents employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining with the employers of such employees.
Considering all of the record and the foregoing, it is
concluded and found that Local 1115 is and has been at all
times material herein a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES5
A Preliminary Facts
1. This proceeding presents certain issues as to the
2 For brevity sometimes referred to herein as " Respondent Rockville "
3 For brevity sometimes referred to herein as Respondent Local 1199,
Respondent 1199, or Local 1199
4 For brevity sometimes referred to herein as Local 1115
5 The facts are based upon a composite of the credited aspects of the
testimony of all witnesses, exhibits, stipulations , and admissions in the
pleadings Testimony contradictory of the facts found is discredited based
supervisory status or agency responsibility by Respondent
Rockville as to certain individuals during the relevant time
involved in the events in contention.6
There is no issue as to Resppondent Rockville's
responsibility for the conduct of Isaac Putterman, Arnold
Putterman, and Veta Fuller during such time . Thus it is
clear that during all times material herein Isaac Putterman
has been the sole proprietor of the employing facility
involved, that Arnold Putterman, son of Isaac Putterman,
assisted during such time his father in the management and
supervision of said facility. It is also clear that Veta Fuller
served during such time as directoress of nurses, with
authority to hire and fire employees, and had responsibility
for major supervision of the registered nurses, licensed
practical nurses, nurses aides, and orderlies. It is thus clear
and it is concluded and found that Respondent Rockville is
responsible for the acts of Isaac Putterman, Arnold
Putterman, and Veta Fuller, as set forth herein.
Nor is there any real issue that Janet Willis and Hal J.
Schifter were supervisory agents acting for Respondent
Rockville during the time of their employment. Respon-
dent's main dispute is whether Schifter had authority or
responsibility with respect to the question of receiving
Local 1115's demand for recognition as a collective-
bargaining agent. This latter contention will be taken care
of at the place in this decision wherein the refusal-to-
bargain issue is considered. Suffice it to say at this point
that the facts clearly establish that Janet Willis was
employed as administrator of Respondent's Rockville
Nursing Center between September 15, 1969, and March
15, 1970, that Willis had final authority to hire and fire
employees, and was a supervisor of Respondent Rockville
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Hal J.
Schifter was employed as administrator of said Nursing
Center from March 15, 1970, to mid-April 1970, had
authority to hire and fire employees subject to consultation
with Arnold Putterman, and had authority to act as agent
with respect to running the Nursing Center internally. Thus
the facts clearly establish that Schifter was a supervisor of
Respondent Rockville within the meaning of Section 2(11)
of the Act during the relevant time herein.
Similarly, the issue is slight concerning the status of
Stephen Woodyear, Lois Steinhauser, and Shirley Davis as
supervisory agents of Respondent Rockville.
Thus, Woodyear was employed during the relevant time
concerning the events herein as director of maintenance.
Woodyear had an office and was in charge of Respondent
Rockville's porters, housekeepers, maids, and laundry
employees. Woodyear set work schedules for such employ-
ees, interviewed and hired prospective employees, made
assignments of employees to overtime work, and gave
employees under his charge their daily work instructions. It
is clear and it is concluded and found that Woodyear was a
supervisory agent of Respondent Rockville within the
upon comparative demeanor of the witnesses involved and the logical
consistency of all the facts
6 The facts relating to the supervisory status of the individuals referred
to herein are based upon a composite of the credited aspects of all
witnesses, including Isaac Putterman , Arnold Putterman , Veta Fuller,
Barnes , McLean, Winder, McQueen, Carter, Lee, Nanton, Kelly, Crosby,
Eason, and Frank Ricks
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act during the relevant
time herein.
Steinhauser was employed by Respondent Rockville
during the relevant time herein as the nursing center
kitchen supervisor with responsibility over dietary aides
and kitchen employees. Steinhauser had an office, inter-
viewed and hired dietary aides and kitchen employees,
prepared and scheduled employees' hours of work and
determined the number of hours such employees worked,
and exercised authority of granting employees permission
to take time off from work. It is clear and concluded and
found that Lois Steinhauser was a supervisor of Respon-
dent Rockville within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act during the relevant time herein.
Shirley Davis was employed by Respondent during the
months of December 1969 and January and February 1970.
Davis' position was that of dietician and in such capacity
she interviewed prospective kitchen employees, set hours of
work of kitchen employees, and issued daily work
instructions to kitchen employees. It is clear that Davis
responsibly directed work of employees in a nonroutine
manner and thereby was a supervisor of Respondent
Rockville within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act
during the relevant time herein.
There is an issue as to Respondent Rockville's responsi-
bility for the acts and conduct of Gidney, Doton, Alexis,
Taylor, Liss, Dunn, Pocs, and Holley. Each of the foregoing
is a registered nurse and it is noted that Respondent
Rockville is required to have a registered nurse on duty at
all times. Suffice it to say that Respondent Rockville, prior
to sometime in February 1970, scheduled the hours of the
registered nurses in such a manner that, excluding Fuller,
there was one registered nurse on duty at all times . Fuller's
schedule of hours overlapped most of the hours of the 7
a.m. to 3 p.m. shift, and overlapped about half of the hours
of the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift. Fuller's hours of work as
normally scheduled did not overlap the hours of the 11 p.m.
to 7 a.m. shift. In sum, each of the registered nurses worked
some time wherein he or she was the lone registered nurse
on duty.
Prior to February 1970 Respondent Rockville had in
operation a limited number of nursing stations. The
registered nurses, referred to above, at such time worked as
registered nurses in charge of the shift. Around February
16, 1970, Respondent Rockville's operation was of such a
nature that there were several nursing stations opened. At
such time Respondent Rockville maintained a position
known as "house supervisor." 7 The individual assigned as
"house supervisor" was a registered nurse. The facts as a
whole reveal that thereafter the lone registered nurse on
each shift was a "house supervisor."
The "house supervisor" was in charge (during the shift to
which he or she was assigned) of all the nursing stations in
operation. The responsibility of the "house supervisor" was
to supervise the nursing area given the patients by the staff
during the "house supervisor's" tour of duty. The "house
supervisor's" responsibility included seeing that employees
r Owner Isaac Putterman credibly testified to such a described position
as being on each shift Fuller , in her testimony , described the position as
"building supervisor" or assistant supervisor Either title would amount
substantially to the same thing Fuller 's testimony as to the duties of such
supervisor was contradictory of itself I credit Isaac Putterman 's testimony
assigned to the shift were present, and if such personnel
were not present, to call in other personnel.
The house supervisor's responsibility to obtain personnel
when necessary is as revealed by the following credited
excerpts of Isaac Putterman's testimony.
Q. The answer is no.
Now, is it not a fact that when Mrs. Gidney finds it
necessary to cover a floor, she will call in licensed
practical nurses or nurses ' aides to cover a floor, call
them at home to come in to cover a floor?
A. Yes. When somebody fails to show for duty,
according to the schedule which is prepared for, usually
a week in advance, by the Director of Nursing, she
has-there is in the-on the premises a list of our
employees who constitute a reservoir of help, to call, or
she might resort to asking somebody on duty in a prior
shift to stay and work the second shift. In short, she
does whatever is needed to fill the vacancy or the void
caused by an employee failing to report for duty.
The facts are clear that licensed practical nurses and
some other employees reported to the house supervisors for
instructions, and received instructions from such supervi-
sors.
At one place Fuller's testimony revealed in effect that the
house supervisor's duties with respect to the calling in of
employees was substantially as testified to by Putterman.
At other places and in sum, Fuller's testimony minimized
the responsibilities of the house supervisors and in effect
characterized such house supervisors as mere conduits with
all responsibility and authority residing in Fuller. Consider-
ing the contradictory nature of Fuller's testimony with itself
and with Putterman's testimony, the fact that Fuller's
supervision for a substantial amount of time, if as said by
her, was of an away from the nursing center type, I discredit
her testimony contradictory of the facts as found herein.
The facts clearly reveal that during the relevant time
involved herein Gidney, Doton, Alexis, Taylor, Liss, Dunn,
Pocs, and Holley all functioned as "house supervisors." I
further find and conclude that as "house supervisors" the
above-named individuals responsibly directed the work of
the employees involved. Accordingly, I conclude and find
that Gidney, Doton, Alexis, Taylor, Liss, Dunn, Pocs, and
Holley were, at all relevant time herein, supervisors within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
2. The parties, in their pleadings and statements
narrowing the issues, clearly reveal that there is no issue as
to the status of Doris Turner, Sidney Von Luther, Cyril
Lougheed, and James Glinn. Accordingly, based upon the
pleadings and statements narrowing the issues, it is
concluded and found that Dons Turner, Sidney Von
Luther, Cyril Lougheed, and James Glinn are, and have
been at all time material herein, the executive vice
president, vice president, and organizer, respectively, of
Respondent Local 1199, acting on its behalf, and are agents
thereof.
Further, the litigated facts in this case clearly reveal that
and find the facts as indicated . The logical consistency of all of the facts
support Putterman 's testimony thereto I discredit Fuller's testimony
thereto because of its own contradictory nature and because it is against
the logical consistency of all of the facts.
ROCKVILLE NURSING CENTER 963
Edward Kay is an organizer for Respondent Local 1199,
acting on its behalf , and is an agent thereof.
The status of Elizabeth Jennings was in dispute in this
proceeding . Jennings ' testimony revealed that as of April
14, 1970, at a Local 1199 union meeting she was elected a
shop steward for the Union for Respondent Rockville's
employees . By such election the Union held Jennings out to
employees as one of its agents.
Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude and find that
on and after April 14, 1970, Elizabeth Jennings was a shop
steward for Respondent Local 1199, acting on its behalf
and an agent thereof.8
3. All licensed practical nurses, nurses aides , orderlies,
and dietary , housekeeping , laundry and maintenance
employees of Respondent Rockville , employed at its
Nursing Center, exclusive of registered nurses , office
clerical employees , watchmen , guards and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act .9
B. Unlawful Recognition of Local 1199
1. The General Counsel alleged that "In or about
December, 1969, the exact date of which is presently
unknown, Respondent Rockville recognized Respondent
Local 1199 as the collective bargaining representative of its
service and maintenance employees, and licensed practical
nurses , excluding those who work less than 16 hours of
regular work per week."
Although in dispute by the pleadings, statements by
counsel at the hearing revealed that the dispute centered
upon a contention that actual recognition was not accorded
and that a contract executed on January 9, 1970, by the
Respondents was not enforced or maintained.
Although disputed as aforesaid, the facts overwhelmingly
reveal that in December Respondent Local 1199 Executive
Vice President and Director of Organization Elliot Godoff
and Organizer Edward Kay first met, on a date after
December 5 and pnor to December 25, 1970, and on
several other occasions with Isaac Putterman and his Labor
Relations Consultant Krauss, that on these occasions
proposed contractual terms were discussed and negotiated
and that thereafter on January 9, 1970, a collective-
bargaining agreement was executed by the respective
parties covering a bargaining unit as described in the
above-referred to allegation.
The facts also clearly reveal that thereafter, during the
next few months, as set out hereinafter, various Respondent
Rockville supervisors referred to the Union being in, to the
existence of a contract, and urged employees to sign union
membership application cards, dues deduction cards, and
8 In a letter of August 3, 1970, from Jennings and two others to the
National Labor Relations Board, Jennings in effect referred to herself as
one of "the delegates elected by the members at Rockville Nursing
Center ." The letter, prepared at Jennings ' request by someone in Local
1199's office , accompanied a petition adverting that the signatory
individuals wanted "1199 no matter what ." Jennings credibly testified to
the effect that she solicited all the signatures to said petition and had not
been elected as a "delegate ." The facts otherwise reveal that the described
"delegate" did not refer to the constitutional position of delegate for Local
1199 However , considering all of the facts , it is clear that employees would
believe , and that Respondent Local 1199 reasonably would be aware of the
union "benefit" cards, that during the month of March
1970 and the months thereafter vanous officials and agents
of Respondent Local 1199 spoke to employees and referred
to said existence of said contract, that Respondent
Rockville honored the "checkoff" provisions of said
contract, and honored the benefit plan provision of said
contract. Further the facts clearly reveal that the parties on
May 19, 1970, modified in writing the January 9, 1970,
collective-bargaining agreement.ia
Considering all of the foregoing, it is clear and I conclude
and find that at a point of time in December 1969 after
December 5, 1969, and prior to December 25, 1969,
Respondent Rockville recognized Respondent Local 1199
as the collective-bargaining representative of its service and
maintenance employees and licensed practical nurses,
excluding those who work less than 16 hours of regular
work per week.
2. The General Counsel alleged that "Respondent
Rockville recognized Respondent Local 1199, as set forth
above, notwithstanding the fact that Respondent Rockville
did not at the time of said recognition have in its employ a
representative complement of the employees to be subse-
quently employed and covered by such recognition ...."
As indicated before, Respondents' contended dispute is
basically that "actual recognition" was not accorded and
that the January 9, 1970, collective-bargaining agreement
was not maintained or enforced. The facts as indicated
previously reveal this contention to be without merit.
Payroll records of Respondent Rockville introduced into
the record reveal that with respect to the stipulated
appropriate bargaining unit there were four bargaining unit
employees employed during the period December 1-7,
1969, that there were 15 bargaining unit employees
employed during the period December 8-14, 1969, that
there were 20 bargaining unit employees employed during
the period December 15-21, 1969, and that there were 23
bargaining unit employees employed during the period
December 22-28, 1969. Payroll records of Respondent
Rockville reveal that as of the period July 20-30, 1970,
there were 97 bargaining unit employees employed, and
that as of October 20-26, 1970, there were 93 bargaining
unit employees employed.
Payroll records establish that during the weeks ending
December 21 and December 28, 1970, the Respondent had
in existence a representative number of job classifications
as compared to later months.
The issue in this case is not whether Respondent
Rockville employed a representative complement of
employees prior to December 25, 1969, in the alleged and
stipulated appropriate bargaining unit, but whether Res-
pondent Rockville employed a representative complement
of employees in the bargaining unit for which Respondent
belief, that Jennings was an agent of Local 1199.
8 The facts are based upon a stipulation by the parties.
10 Respondent Local 1199 Vice President Von Luther met in May 1970
with some employees and Isaac Putterman . Employee Bryan complained
that Respondent Rockville's employees were underpaid compared to other
nursing homes Von Luther told Putterman that he agreed with this
Putterman stated that he would do something about this . Thereafter on
May 19, 1970, the collective-bargaining agreement was modified to correct
this matter. It is also noted that Isaac Putterman in January 1970 in effect
told DeLaurentis of Local 1115 that he had a collective- bargaining
agreement with Respondent Local 1199
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rockville recognized Respondent Local 1199 in December
1969 and contracted with thereafter on January 9, 1970.
Such bargaining unit excluded part-time employees working
less than 16 hours a week. i i The facts in this case, except in
minor instances , do not reveal information as to who were
part-time employees. Thus it very well may be that a
comparison of the number of employees working in a
bargaining unit , excluding part-time employees in Decem-
ber 1969, with the number of employees working in the
same unit in July 1970 and thereafter, might reveal that a
representative number of employees in such unit was
employed in December 1969. I note that the General
Counsel specifically asserted that he did not attack the
bargaining unit which excluded such part-time employees
as being per se illegal. Neither evidence nor argument
otherwise has been presented to reveal such bargaining unit
which excluded such part-time employees as being illegal in
nature . Considering statements of counsel narrowing issues
in this proceeding and the foregoing, I conclude and find
that the evidence is insufficient to establish that Respon-
dent Rockville recognized Respondent Local 1199 at a time
when a representative complement was not employed in the
recognized unit.
3. The General Counsel alleged that "Respondent
Rockville recognized Respondent Local 1199, as set forth
above . . . notwithstanding the fact that Respondent Local
1199 did not at the time of said recognition, nor at any time
thereafter, represent an uncoerced majority of the employ-
ees covered by said recognition."
As indicated before, Respondents' contended dispute is
basically that "actual recognition" was not accorded and
that the January 9, 1970, collective-bargaining agreement
was not maintained or enforced. The facts as indicated
previously reveal this contention to be without merit.
Further, Respondents, by statements of counsel at the
hearing , narrowed the issues in the proceeding eliminating
the issue concerning majority status of Local 1199 prior to
January 9, 1970. Thus there is no contention or issue but
that at the time of the recognition of Respondent Local
1199 by Respondent Rockville, after December 5 but prior
to December 25, 1969, Respondent Local 1199 failed to
have authorization cards of a majority of the employees in
the recognized bargaining unit. Further dialogue of
counsel , the exhibits with reference to the authorization
cards, and a composite of the credited testimony of
witnesses, the exhibits relating to dues deduction cards, the
exhibits relating to dues deducted, and a reasonable
inference therefrom reveal a strong prima facie showing that
Respondent Local 1199 had no cards authorizing union
representation by such union at the time of Respondent
Rockville's recognition of Respondent Local 1199 in
December 1969. No credible evidence was adduced
otherwise to rebut this prima facie case.12 Accordingly, I
conclude and find that the facts reveal that Respondent
11 The contract terms were somewhat ambiguous as to the status of a
part-time employee working exactly 16 hours a week
12 Considering the logical consistency of all of the facts in this case, I do
not credit the testimony of Isaac Putterman and Labor Consultant Krauss
that some authorization cards were exhibited to them by Union Vice
President Godoff at one of the bargaining sessions in December 1969 or
January 1970
13 Considering the totality of unlawful conduct as set forth before and
Local 1199 represented none of Respondent Rockville's
employees at the time of the December 1969 recognition by
Respondent Rockville of Respondent Local 1199 in the
aforementioned recognized bargaining unit.
After the unlawful recognition of Local 1199 by
Respondent Rockville, the facts reveal that only one
authorization card for Local 1199 was signed prior to
January 9, 1970.13
Furthermore, the facts set forth later in this Decision
clearly reveal that Respondent Rockville after January 26,
1970, engaged in open and widespread unlawful assistance
to Respondent Local 1199 in the securing of employee
signatures to union cards. Such conduct considered in
context with the unlawful recognition and contractual
arrangements, including union-security provisions, clearly
reveals a prima facie case of conduct which coercively
interfered with the designation of union representation
status of all union card signers after January 9, 1970.14 Such
case has not been rebutted. It follows and I conclude and
find that Respondent Local 1199 did not and has not
represented an uncoerced majority of employees in the unit
covered by said January 9, 1970, contract.
The above-referred to recognition and continued recogni-
tion of Respondent Local 1199 by Respondent Rockville
under the circumstances described clearly interfered with
employees' organizational rights, and clearly constituted
unlawful aid and assistance to Respondent Local 1199.
Such conduct constituted conduct violative of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by Respondent Rockville. It is so
concluded and found.
The above-referred to acceptance of recognition from
Respondent Rockville by Respondent Local 1199 re-
strained employees' exercise of their organizational rights.
Thus it is concluded and found that by such conduct
Respondent Local 1199 violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the
Act.
4. (a) The General Counsel alleges that on or about
January 9, 1970, Respondent Rockville and Respondent
Local 1199 negotiated and executed and, since that date,
have maintained in effect and enforced a collective-
bargaining agreement relating to the hire, tenure, and other
terms and conditions of employment of the employees of
Respondent Rockville, whereunder, inter alia, Respondent
Rockville recognized Respondent Local 1199 as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employ-
ees in a bargaining unit described as-service and
maintenance employees, and licensed practical nurses,
excluding those who work less than 16 hours of regular
work per week.
The facts relating to this allegation have already been set
forth above and clearly support an affirmative finding.
Accordingly, it is concluded and found that the facts are as
alleged herein.
(b) The General Counsel alleges that the agreement
later, the General Counsel has established a strong prima facie case that all
Local 1199 authorization cards secured were tainted by coercion Such case
has not been rebutted
14 The Respondent points out that there are 36 cards (application for
membership in Local 1199) for which specific evidence as to circumstances
of execution was not adduced Suffice it to say the General Counsel's case
reveals a strong prima facie case of coercion which has not been rebutted
ROCKVILLE NURSING CENTER 965
referred to above contained provisions which required
membership in Respondent Local 1199 as a condition of
employment and tenure of employment.
The facts are undisputed that the referred to contract
contained the following provisions:
Article II Union Security
1. All Employees on the active payroll as of the
effective date of this Agreement who are members of
the Union shall maintain their membership in the
Union in good standing as a condition of continued
employment.
2. All Employees on the active payroll as of the
effective date of this Agreement who are not members
of the Union shall become members of the Union
within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this
Agreement, except those who were required to become
members sooner under the expired Agreement who
shall become members as of the earlier applicable date,
and shall thereafter maintain their membership in the
Union in good standing as a condition of continued
employment.
3. All Employees hired after the effective date of
this Agreement shall become members of the Union no
later than the thirtieth (30th) day following the
beginning of such employment and shall thereafter
maintain their membership in the Union in good
standing as a condition of continued employment.
4. For the purposes of this Article, an Employee
shall be considered a member of the Union in good
standing if he tenders his periodic dues and initiation
fee uniformly required as a condition of membership.
5. Subject to Article XXIII, an Employee who has
failed to maintain membership in good standing as
required by this Article shall, within twenty (20)
calendar days following the receipt of a written demand
from the Union requesting his discharge, be discharged
if, during such period, the required dues and initiation
fee have not been tendered.
6. No initiation fee shall be charged by the Union
until the Center is fully staffed and approved by the
State and County agencies.
7. The Union agrees that it will indemnify and hold
the Center harmless from any recovery of damages
sustained by reason of any action taken under this
Article.
Article III, the check-off provision of the aforementioned
agreement , in relevant part provides:
1. Upon receipt of a written authorization from an
Employee in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit "A",
the Center shall, pursuant to such authorization, deduct
from the wages due said Employee each month, starting
not earlier than the first pay period following the
completion of the Employee's first thirty (30) days of
employment, and remit to the Union regular monthly
dues and initiation fee, as fixed by the Union. The
initiation fee shall be paid in two (2) consecutive
monthly installments beginning the month following
the completion of the probationary period.
(c) The General Counsel alleges that Respondent
Rockville and Respondent Local 1199 executed, and
thereafter maintained in effect and enforced , the referred to
January 9, 1970, contract, notwithstanding the fact that
Respondent Rockville did not at the time of the execution
thereof have in their employ a representative complement
of the employees to be subsequently employed in the
recognized bargaining unit.
Suffice it to say that payroll records indicate a
representative number of job classifications in existence at
the time the January 9, 1970, contract was executed. The
payroll records and information relating to individuals
employed are insufficient in detail to determine the number
of part-time employees working less than 16 hours per week
dunng the several months involved . Thus it is impossible to
determine whether or not a representative number of
employees (in a unit which excluded part-time employees
working less than 16 hours per week) was employed as of
January 9, 1970. Accordingly, I conclude and find that the
General Counsel has not sustained this allegation.
(d) The General Counsel also alleges in effect that
Respondent Rockville and Respondent Local 1199 execut-
ed, and thereafter maintained in effect and enforced, the
referred to January 9, 1970, contract notwithstanding the
fact that Respondent Local 1199 did not at the time of
execution thereof , nor at any time thereafter , represent an
uncoerced majority of the employees in the recognized
bargaining unit.
The facts relating to this issue have already been set forth
above. Suffice it to say that the evidence clearly establishes
the facts as alleged.
Considering all of the foregoing , it is concluded and
found that Respondent Rockville engaged in conduct
which: (1) interfered with, restrained, and coerced employ-
ees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights; (2) unlawfully
aided and assisted Local 1199 in its organizational efforts;
and (3) discriminated in regard to the hiring and tenure of
employment of employees, and that thereby Respondent
Rockville engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1),
(2), and (3) of the Act.
Considering all of the foregoing , it is concluded and
found that Respondent Local 1199 engaged in conduct
whereby it (1) restrained and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and (2)
caused and attempted to cause Respondent Rockville to
discriminate against employees in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act. Such conduct is violative of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2). It is so concluded and found.
C. Unlawful Solicitation of Employees To Sign
Union Cards
Threats of Discharge and Reprisals
The General Counsel alleged in effect that: (1) On
various dates dunng the months of January, February, and
March 1970 Respondent Rockville by various agents
required and solicited its employees to sign cards designat-
ing Respondent Local 1199 as their representative for
collective-bargaining purposes with an object to induce said
employees to support and assist Respondent Local 1199
rather than any other labor organization; and (2) on
various dates during the months of January, February, and
March 1970 Respondent Rockville by various agents
threatened its employees with discharge and other reprisals
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
if they did not become and remain members of Respondent
Local 1199, and if they did not give any assistance and
support of it.
The facts relating to the above issues may be set out as
follows: is
1. Respondent Rockville caused to be placed during the
months of January, February, March, and April 1970 at
various places, such as the nursing office, and with various
of its supervisors, authorization for representation by Local
1199 cards, dues check-off authorization cards for Local
1199, and certain Local 1199 benefit registration cards. The
exact date that Respondent Rockville commenced placing
Local 1199 union cards at various places in its facility and
with various supervisors is not established except to the
extent that such was done at some point of time around or
at least by January 26, 1970.
The foregoing facts are based upon a composite of the
credited aspects of the testimony of all witnesses and the
logical consistency of all the facts in the case. Suffice it to
say in summary that various witnesses credibly testified to
the effect that they were employed during said period of
time by Respondent Rockville, that they saw the referred to
Local 1199 union cards at the directoress of nurses' office,
that they saw Fuller, Doton, Steinhauser, and Woodyear
with such referred to union cards, and that the above and
other supervisors of Respondent Rockville showed them
said cards or gave such cards to them and indicated to them
that they were expected to sign such cards. Such witnesses
also credibly testified to incidents of seeing such cards at
such times and places with their names written on such
cards, and of seeing posted lists of employees who had not
signed such cards. Supervisor Doton credibly testified to
having been given such union (Local 1199) cards by
Administrator Willis and to having spoken to employees
with reference to such cards. Doton in his testimony
disputed certain specific statements testified to by the
General Counsel's witnesses. Suffice it to say, except as
indicated otherwise herein, I found the General Counsel's
witnesses who testified to such incidents to appear to be
testifying in a more fully frank and forthright manner to
such incidents than did Doton. Considering this and the
logical consistency of all of the facts, I credit the facts as
found.
Fuller's testimony in general appears contradictory of the
testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses as to various
incidents. As to some major aspects of Fuller's testimony, I
note that Fuller did not appear to be a fully frank and
forthright witness. Considering this, the logical consistency
15 The facts are based upon a composite of the credited aspects of all
witnesses ' testimony and the logical consistency of all of the facts.
Essentially included in the foregoing are the credited aspects of the
testimony of Lee , Maxine Coleman , Debra Coleman, Roberta Scurry, Eula
Wright , Hunter, Frank Ricks, Hattie Ricks, Drucella Moore, Barnes,
Reddick , Parades, Kelly, Casson, McQueen , Eason , Steinhauser , Doton,
Crosby, Carter, Morris, Yearling , Nesbitt , Butler, Samuels, Smith , Winder,
Thomas, Reed , Graham , Traxler, Horn, McLean , Nanton , Dew, and
Louise Moore . Suffice it to say that cross-examination of some of these
witnesses indicated certain points of doubt which have been considered
and resolved A consideration of the clearly established facts as a whole
and the confusing nature of multiplicity of cards and events , in context
with all of the facts , resolved and eliminated many indications of doubt
expressed by witnesses on cross-examination . I discredit Fuller,
Steinhauser , Gidney, and Doton , in their testimony , and other witnesses
similarly in testimony contradictory of the facts found Suffice it to say the
of the facts, and the more frank and forthright appearance
of General Counsel's witnesses to such incidents, I credit
the facts as found.
Various General Counsel witnesses testified with respect
to incidents involving Supervisor Steinhauser. Steinhauser's
testimony does not appear to dispute the fact that she spoke
to employees about Local 1199 union cards but either
disputed or did not recall certain specific statements
alluded to have been made. Considering the general
favorable appearance of frankness and forthrightness of
General Counsel's witnesses thereto, and the logical
consistency of all of the facts, I credit the facts as found.
I similarly find the General Counsel's witness Casson's
testimony more believable than witness Gidney's testimony
as to incidents alluded to concerning Gidney, and credit
Casson's testimony over Gidney's where in conflict.
2. Commencing at a point of time around January 26,
1970, Respondent Rockville's supervisors had Local 1199
union cards (authorization cards, dues-checkoff cards, and
benefit cards) at or around their duty stations, alerted
employees to such cards and to Respondent's desire and
indicated requirement that such cards be executed by
employees. The aforesaid conduct continued through the
months of February, March, and April 1970.
3. As to specific incidents the following facts may be
summarized:
(a) On or around January 26, 1970, Supervisor Fuller
spoke to nurses aide Nesbitt, who had just been hired.
Fuller told Nesbitt that she would earn $96 per week and
that Local 1199 would soon be at the facility.16
(b) On or around January 26, 1970, Directoress of Nurses
Fuller placed Local 1199 union cards (application for
membership, dues-checkoff authorization, and benefit plan
registration cards) in the Nursing Center's third floor
nurses' station and stated to LPN Lee that "these are for the
aides to sign."
(c) On one day in January 1970 employee Hunter noted a
list on the bulletin board in the Directoress of Nurses' office
(Fuller's office), noted that there were listed names of
employees who had not signed Local 1199 cards, asked
Fuller if she should sign cards, and was told by Fuller in
effect that she should sign such cards.17
(d) On or around January 26, 1970, Supervisor Woodyear
called in employees Eason, Crosby, and Ricks, gave them
Local 1199 cards (application for membership and dues-
checkoff authorization and benefit plan registration) and
told them in effect to sign such cards. Eason asked
Woodyear in effect if she had to sign such cards. Woodyear
witnesses who are credited presented a more fully frank , forthright, and
truthful demeanor than the witnesses whose testimony is discredited. This
plus a consideration of the logical consistency of all the facts compel the
findings herein
16 Respondents argue that testimony as to the Union being in, coming
in, and would be coming in, contradicts the credibility of various witnesses'
testimony Considering the timing of the statements , and the type of
unlawful assistance involved , I find it very believable that Fuller's
statements concerning the Union would vary. I credit the testimony of
witnesses to the facts as indicated.
10 Respondents contend that Hunter's credibility is affected by her
testimony to the effect that Fuller told her that she could not answer
questions about the Union because she did not know answers herself
Considering Respondents ' unlawful conduct concerning the imposition of a
bargaining representative upon the employees , I do not find such statement
to be inconsistent with the logical consistency of all of the facts.
ROCKVILLE NURSING CENTER 967
did not reply but merely stared at her. The aforesaid
employees took the cards, later took them home and signed
such cards, and returned the cards to Woodyear in the next
several days.18
(e) On January 16, 1970, employee Annie Horn signed an
1199 union card (application for membership). It is noted
that this card was executed subsequent to the unlawful
recognition of Local 1199 by Respondent Rockville.
Otherwise, there was no evidence submitted as to the
circumstances surrounding the execution of this card.
Apparently later, but prior to January 28, 1970, Supervisor
Fuller gave Horn a Local 1199 benefit plan registration
card and told her that "This is a union card. The employees
benefit by it." Horn took such "benefit" card, signed it, and
immediately returned it to Fuller.
Later, Horn executed another Local 1199 application for
membership card and a Local 1199 dues-checkoff authori-
zation card on January 28, 1970. There is no indication that
these cards were given to Horn by supervisory officials of
Respondent Rockville.19
(f) On January 29, 1970, Supervisor Fuller approached
nurses aides Graham, Manuel, and Traxler, gave each of
them Local 1199 union cards (application for membership,
dues checkoff, and benefit registration plan). On this
occasion Fuller stated, "if you want to sign for the union, it
is for your own good because this is the union in here for
now." Graham, Manuel, and Traxler thereupon signed
Local 1199's union cards (application for membership,
dues-checkoff authorization, and benefit plan registration
cards).20
(g) On January 29, 1970, Directoress of Nurses Fuller
handed employee Scurry, at work, Local 1199 union cards
(application for membership, dues-checkoff authorization,
and benefit plan registration). Fuller asked Scurry if she did
not want to join the Union and told her in effect that here
were the cards. Scurry took the aforesaid cards and placed
them on a desk. About 10 minutes later, Fuller approached
Scurry again and asked if she had signed the Local 1199
18 Respondents argue that Ricks' testimony as to receipt of the cards
from Woodyear was inconsistent with Eason's and Crosby 's testimony in
that it did not allude to the presence of Eason or Crosby at the time of
receipt of the cards Considering the testimony , I find no inconsistency but
rather the failure of the counsel to ask the type of question to elicit such
detail . Further, the record reveals a multiplicity of cards with the
application for membership and dues-checkoff authorization cards at one
time being one document with a perforated division . Although some of the
testimony reveals that all cards were not given every employee, the logical
consistency of facts reveals that all such cards were given most of the
employees Considering the totality of the facts , I find the facts as
indicated As to those instances where the individual employees advert to
only one or two of the cards, and the overall facts indicate differently, the
overall results would not be changed by a different finding thereto
19 Respondent Local 1199' s counsel elicited the fact that Horn's
affidavit reflected in effect that such cards were given her by employee
Atkins . This did not refresh Horn 's memory as to whom she obtained the
referred to cards from Considering the totality of all of the facts , I would
find that the January 28 , 1970, execution of the union cards would be
coercive in nature whether received from a supervisory official or not. In
the context of illegal recognition of Local 1199 on January 9, 1970, and the
open assistance and aid to Respondent Local 1199 indicated otherwise, the
overall atmosphere was so coercive that its coercive effect upon these cards
would naturally follow
20 A composite of the credited testimony of witnesses and exhibits
reveals that certain specific Local 1199 cards (application for membership
and dues-checkoff authorization ) were lost, and that employees at times
were requested to resign cards The record reveals Graham' s cards relating
union cards. Scurry told Fuller that she had not signed the
cards because she did not know what she would be signing.
Fuller told Scurry that she had to sign the cards in order to
keep her job. Whereupon Scurry signed the aforesaid cards
and returned them to Fuller. On this occasion nurses aides
Hahn and Broadnax were present and filled out similar
Local 1199 cards.21
(h) At some point of time in January 1970, nurses aide
Maxine Coleman was in the Directoress of Nurses' office
(Fuller's office) and saw Local 1199 union cards on Fuller's
desk. Supervisor Doton was there and told Coleman in
effect that here were the cards he had been told to give
everyone. Coleman picked up the Local 1199 union cards
(application for membership, dues checkoff authorization
cards, and benefit plan registration card) and took them
home.
Several days later, Maxine Coleman telephoned Directo-
ress of Nurses Fuller and asked if it were mandatory to sign
the Local 1199 cards. Fuller told Coleman that signing the
cards would insure her job. Later, the same day, Maxine
Coleman signed the Local 1199 cards, and later took the
said executed cards to work and left them on Fuller's
desk.22
(i) Around the last of January or first of February 1970,
Supervisor Doton handed nurses aide Irene Hunter Local
1199 Union cards (application for membership, dues-
checkoff authorization, and benefit plan registration). The
application for membership card had Hunter's name
already written upon it. Hunter asked Doton if she had to
sign such cards. Doton replied "yes." Several days later on
February 2, 1970, Hunter signed the aforementioned Local
1199 cards.
(1) Around the first of February 1970, Supervisor Fuller
and nurses aide Drucella Moore had a discussion about
raises and the union. Moore asked Fuller when she would
get a pay raise. Fuller asked Moore if she had been there
when the Union came in. Moore replied that she had never
to application for membership and dues-checkoff authorization and
Manuel 's cards relating to application for membership and to dues-
checkoff authorization The record does not reveal any union cards for
Traxler However, the record reveals that dues were in fact checked off for
Traxler All of these witnesses clearly testified to signing the Local 1199
benefit plan registration cards Taking into consideration the natural
confusion to the employees' witnesses as regards the multiplicity of cards
and signing, I am convinced and I conclude and find that Traxler signed
an application for membership card, a dues-checkoff authorization card,
and the union benefit plan registration card at the same time It does not
make sense that Traxler would fill out the benefit plan card at such time
without filling out the other cards under the circumstances
21 The General Counsel presented Broadnax as a witness Broadnax as
a witness was unimpressive , obviously evasive, and completely unbelievable
in her denial of the foregoing incident. No finding is based upon her
testimony, nor is her testimony of value as to its contradictory nature. I
note that the cross-examination of Scurry seemed to be aimed at one point
to establish confusion concerning the "union " notices as to Local 1199
meetings Suffice it to say, the overall evidence , including Jennings'
testimony, clearly reveals that union notices as to Local 1199's meetings
were posted on Respondent Rockville's premises
22 Respondent Local 1199 contends that Coleman did not execute such
cards and points out the absence of such cards in the record in this case
Suffice it to say the facts reveal a multiplicity of execution of cards and the
clear loss or absence of some of the cards . It is noted that the record
reveals that dues were checked off for Maxine Coleman in March 1970.
Accordingly, because of her truthful demeanor and the overall consistency
of facts, I credit Maxine Coleman's testimony to the effect as found
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
heard of a union. Thereupon Fuller stated that she would
check the records and let Moore know.
(k) Around the first of February 1970, Supervisor Doton
gave LPN Mary Butler Local 1199 union cards (application
for membership, dues-checkoff authorization, and benefit
plan registration). Doton told Butler in effect that here were
the cards for the Union. Butler took the cards but did not
sign them.
Later, on February 20, 1970, Butler asked Supervisor
Doton when the Union was coming in. Doton told Butler in
effect that the Union was coming in "as soon as all the
cards were signed." Thereupon Butler asked Doton for the
1199 union cards, received such cards (application for
membership, dues-checkoff authorization, and benefit plan
registration), signed the cards, and placed them in the
Directoress of Nurses' office.23
(1) On February 2, 1970, Supervisor Fuller approached
nurses aide Louise Moore near the timeclock in Fuller's
office. Fuller gave Moore Local 1199 union cards
(application for membership, dues-checkoff authorization,
and benefit plan registration).24 Fuller told Moore that she
had to sign the cards because a majority of the employees
had signed. Thereupon, Louise Moore signed the referred
to Local 1199 union cards.
(m) On February 2, 1970, Supervisor Fuller approached
LPN Verdell Kelly and nurses aide Roxie Moms near the
timeclock, gave Kelly Local 1199 union cards (application
for membership, dues-checkoff authorization, and benefit
plan registration), and asked Kelly to sign said cards. Kelly
asked Fuller if the majority of the employees had signed
such cards. Fuller told Kelly in effect that a majority of
employees had already signed . Thereupon, Kelly stated
that she would go along with the majority. Kelly signed the
benefit registration plan card but took the other cards
home. Kelly signed the application for membership card
and the dues-checkoff authorization card on February 2,
1970, and returned the said cards to Fuller the next day.25
Fuller told Morris that she had some union cards she
wanted Morris to sign . Morris asked Fuller if there were
someone there to say something about the Union, that if
everyone else had signed that she had no choice. Fuller told
Morris that a "man would be coming in soon to discuss the
whole thing with us." Morris took the Local 1199 cards
(application for membership, dues-checkoff authorization
and benefit registration plan), signed such cards, and
returned them to Fuller.
(n) Directoress of Nurses Fuller, on or about February 3,
1970, gave nurses aide Elizabeth Jennings Local 1199 cards
(application for membership, dues-checkoff authorization,
23 Butler's testimony to these events became somewhat confused.
Considering the totality of the facts , I find the facts as indicated.
Respondent contends that Butler voluntarily signed the cards. In the total
context of open assistance by Respondent Rockville to Respondent Local
1199, I reject this contention.
24 Many of the witnesses specifically testified to one or the other of the
referred to cards Considering the totality of the evidence and stipulations
as to the date of execution of the cards , I find the facts as indicated
25 Fuller's testimony constituted in effect a denial of any activity
connected with the Local 1199 cards. Fullers testimony also was to the
effect that instead of Local 1199 cards she only gave the employees W-4
forms . The logical consistency of all the facts and the facts as a whole
completely warrant a finding that Fuller was involved in giving out Local
1199's cards Considering this and all of the facts , I find Kelly's and the
and benefit plan registration). Jennings, thereupon, duly
signed such cards.
(o) On February 5, 1970, Supervisor Lois Steinhauser
called diet aide Annie McLean into her office. Supervisor,
Shirley Davis was present in the office with Steinhauser on
this occasion. Supervisor Steinhauser showed McLean
some Local 1199 cards (application for membership, dues-
checkoff authorization, and benefit plan registration) and
told her in effect that there were union cards that she had to
sign . McLean left the office without such cards.
A few minutes later, Supervisor Davis asked McLean to
return to Steinhauser's office. In Steinhauser's office,
Supervisor Davis told McLean that she had to sign the
union cards or otherwise she would be fired. Steinhauser
also, at this time , told McLean that if she did not sign the
cards she would be fired. McLean took the cards and left
the office. Later on February 8, 1970, McLean signed the
aforesaid union cards and returned the same to
Steinhauser.26
(p) On or about February 5, 1970, Supervisor Steinhauser
spoke to cook's helper Willie Smith. Steinhauser gave Smith
a Local 1199 card and told him in effect, "if you don't sign
this card in 30 days, you don't have a job." Smith took the
card, signed it, and returned it to Steinhauser. Smith later
was given other Local 1199 cards by employee Jennings
and signed these cards also on February 5, 1970.27
(q) Around February 9, 1970, Supervisor Fuller ap-
proached nurses aide Wilhemina Samuels , gave her a Local
1199 benefit registration plan card, and told her in effect
that here was a card that she had to sign for the Union if she
wanted to work there. Samuels took this card, signed it, and
returned it to Fuller. Later, around February 26, 1970,
Samuels signed Local 1199 application for membership and
dues-checkoff authorization cards.
(r) On some Saturday in February 1970, Supervisor
Gidney approached LPN Beatrice Nanton (who was
punching in to start work) and gave her Local 1199 cards
(application for membership, dues-checkoff authorization,
and benefit plan registration) and told her that these were
union cards. Nanton's name was penciled upon one of the
1199 cards. Nanton took such cards home with her, did not
sign such cards, and did not return the cards to the Nursing
Center.
(s) On February 10, 1970, Supervisor Taylor and nurses
aide Maxine Coleman engaged in a conversation with
nurses aide Dew. Taylor or Coleman told Dew in effect that
if she did not join Local 1199 that she would have to pay
$30 in initiation fees after the Union came in in order to
join the Union.
other witnesses ' testimony concerning Fuller 's activities more credible than
Fuller 's denial thereto
26 McLean in her testimony became confused as to the timing of
Steinhauser 's threats . McLean appeared to be a frank , forthright, and
truthful but slightly confused witness . Considering her demeanor and the
logical consistency of the facts , I find the facts as set out
27 Smith appeared to be a frank , forthright, and truthful witness. Smith,
however, as a witness, and apparently normally, appears to be a confused
person . I am not persuaded that he knew specifically which 1199 cards
were given him by Steinhauser or Jennings. I am persuaded from his
demeanor and the overall facts that remarks by Steinhauser were made to
the effect that if he did not sign the card in 30 days, he wouldn't have a
job
ROCKVILLE NURSING CENTER 969
On February 11, 1970, Dew went to the Directoress of
Nurses' office and secured from Supervisor Doton Local
1199 cards (application for membership and dues-checkoff
authorization). Dew signed the aforesaid cards and
returned them to the Directoress of Nurses' office the next
day.
(t) On an occasion in February 1970, nurses aide Carter
observed Local 1199 cards (application for membership,
dues-checkoff authorization, and benefit plan registration)
at the second floor nurses' station, overheard Supervisor
Doton telling other employees that such cards had to be
signed , thereupon took such cards from Doton, took them
home and signed and returned them later in the same
month to Doton.
(u) On February 15, 1970, Supervisor Fuller approached
nurses aide Reddick on the second floor of the Nursing
Center, handed her Local 1199 cards (application for
membership, dues-checkoff authorization and benefit plan
registration), told her that here were union cards, that she
should sign them, and return them to her. Reddick took
such cards home, signed them, and returned them to
Fuller's desk the next day.
(v) On February 16, 1970, Supervisor Fuller approached
nurses aide Shirley Nesbitt at the Nursing Center. Fuller
gave Nesbitt Local 1199 cards (application for membership,
dues-checkoff authorization, and benefit plan registration
cards)28 and told her in effect that she had to sign such
cards. Nesbitt inquired as to what the cards were for. Fuller
replied that they were union cards. Nesbitt took said cards,
signed them later, and later the cards were picked up from
Nesbitt's duty station by Fuller.
(w) Around February 20, 1970, Fuller interviewed
Mildred Thomas concerning potential hiring. On this
occasion Supervisor Fuller told Thomas that "we have a
union here ." Later, after leaving Fuller's office, an
unidentified person gave Thomas a Local 1199 membership
application card which she signed and returned to such
person. Thomas later commenced working for Respondent
Rockville.
(x) On February 20, 1970, Supervisor Gidney approached
nurses aide Louise Casson, handed her Local 1199 cards
(application for membership, dues-checkoff authorization,
and benefit registration plan) and told her that she had to
sign them . Casson took said cards home, signed them, and
returned them to Gidney the next day.
(y) On February 28, 1970, during a job interview of
Jerome Yearling, Supervisor Davis gave Yearling Local
1199 cards (application for membership, dues-checkoff
authorization, and benefit registration plan), asked him to
sign them , and bring them back. About a week later,
Supervisor Steinhauser spoke to Yearling about Davis
having given him the cards and asked if he had the cards.
Yearling replied that he did not have them. Steinhauser told
zs Although specific evidence as to the dues -checkoff authorization card
was not presented , 1 find it proper to infer from all of the evidence that
such card was included
29 Testimony of the witnesses reveals that there was a multiplicity of
cards involved (application for membership , and dues-checkoff authonza-
tion on one form , and a benefit registration card ), and a number of
conversations concerning the cards Cross-examination of witnesses
revealed some possible variation in recollection Hunter at one point
appeared unsure as to whether Fuller had said that she "had" to sign the
cards . Hunter, however, did ultimately testify to such effect . Considering
Yearling in effect that if he did not return them the next
day, they would have to dismiss him.
(z) On an evening in February or March 1970, Supervisor
Doton placed Local 1199 cards (application for member-
ship, dues-checkoff authorization, and benefit registration
plan) on the desk at the third floor nurses' station . On this
occasion Doton told an employee named Gibson that her
name was on one of the cards. On the same occasion Doton
asked Drucella Moore if she had signed a union card.
Moore replied that she had not done so.
(aa) About a week after the events described above,
Supervisor Fuller asked Drucella Moore if she had signed a
Local 1199 union card. Moore replied that she had not
signed such a card.
(bb) On a Wednesday evening in late February 1970,
Supervisor Fuller met with several nurses aides concerning
hospital rules. Among the aides present were Hunter and
Parades. On this occasion an unidentified employee asked
whether the employees had to sign the Local 1199 cards
given to them by Fuller and the others. Fuller replied in
effect that the employees had to sign the cards, that where
any hospital or organization had a union, employees had to
sign cards within 30 days 29
(cc) On March 3, 1970, Supervisor Steinhauser inter-
viewed Jesse McQueen in connection with the hiring of
McQueen. At the termination of the interview, Supervisor
Steinhauser gave McQueen a W-4 withholding form and
Local 1199 cards (application for membership, dues-
checkoff authorization, and benefit plan registration).
McQueen took such cards but did not complete the union
cards. Later at home, McQueen signed the cards and put
them in her pocketbook.
Around March 9, 1970, Supervisor Steinhauser ap-
proached McQueen and asked for the Local 1199 cards.
McQueen told Steinhauser that the cards were in her
pocketbook in her locker. Supervisor Steinhauser told
McQueen that she needed the signed cards before
McQueen could get her pay. Whereupon McQueen went to
her locker and then returned to Steinhauser with her
application for membership and dues-checkoff authoriza-
tion cards. McQueen handed these cards to Steinhauser.
Steinhauser returned these cards to McQueen saying that
the card that she wanted was the benefit registration card,
that without it McQueen would not receive her paycheck.
Steinhauser told McQueen in effect to come back after
lunch and that she would give her a Local 1199 benefit plan
registration card to fill out. McQueen did so, received the
benefit registration plan card, signed it, and returned all of
the Local 1199 cards (application for membership, dues-
checkoff authorization, and benefit plan registration) to
Steinhauser.30
(dd) On or about March 4, 1970, Supervisor Steinhauser
called employee Daniel Barnes to her office, and thereupon
the logical consistency of all the facts , I am persuaded that Fuller used
words that amounted to telling Hunter that she had to or was required to
sign such cards I credit Hunter's testimony to such effect and discredit
Fuller's denial thereto
30 McQueen 's demeanor was that of a frank , forthright , and truthful
witness However , as a witness, McQueen engaged in a give and take type
of answer on cross-examination. Examination as to detail reveals her
characterization of having "sweetened" her affidavit to be merely an
explanation of difference without substance between statements therein
and her testimony at the hearing.
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gave him Local 1199's application for membership and
dues-checkoff authorization, and benefit plan registration
cards . Steinhauser stated to Barnes in effect that here were
two cards,31 that she must have these cards signed. Barnes
took the aforesaid cards and left the office.
Later, on three or four subsequent times, Steinhauser
asked Barnes for the aforesaid cards and requested that he
leave them on her desk.
Around March 6 or 7, 1970, employee Parades was told
to report to the "nurses" office. She did so and saw several
other employees and Supervisor Doton. Doton spoke to
employees about the need for help, and said that after the
Union was there, there would be more help. Doton told the
employees that Local 1199 cards were on the table, that if
they wanted to sign them they could sign them there or take
them to the nurses' station and sign them. Parades took the
1199 cards to the nurses' station, did not sign them, and left
them at the nurses' station. Two days later, at the nurses'
office, Doton asked Parades if she had signed the 1199
cards. Parades replied that she had not signed the cards.
Supervisor Doton gave her some more of the Local 1199
cards.32 Parades took these cards home with her. Later
Parades spoke to Supervisor Holley and asked for some
explanation about the Union. Supervisor Holley told her in
effect that she did not know anything about the Union.
Parades inquired as to what would happen if she did not
sign the cards. Supervisor Holley replied in effect that the
ones who did not sign, if there were a layoff, would be the
first to be laid off.33
The next day Parades brought the Local 1199 cards from
home and at work started to sign the cards. Her duties
interrupted the signing of the cards, whereupon she left the
cards in the desk at the nurses' station. About 30 minutes
later she ran into Doton near the "nurses office." Doton
told her that he had her cards and would call her later to
sign the cards. About an hour later Doton called Parades to
the "nurses office" questioned her as to some facts,
completed the cards, and asked her to sign the cards.
Parades expressed some hesitation about signing the cards
but signed after being reassured by Doton that everything
was all right.
Around March 24, 1970, Supervisor Fuller spoke to
Parades outside Fuller's office. Fuller asked Parades if she
had signed Local 1199 cards. Parades replied that she had
signed the cards. Fuller smiled.
(ee) On March 26, 1970, Supervisor Steinhauser ap-
proached employees Debra Coleman and Michelle Reed.
Steinhauser gave these employees Local 1199 cards
(application for membership, dues-checkoff authorization,
and benefit plan registration). Steinhauser told these
employees in effect that here were some cards that they had
31 Although there were three cards, two of the cards were attached
Considering the logical consistency of all of the facts , I find that
application for membership, dues-checkoff authorization , and benefit plan
registration cards were given to Barnes.
32 Application for membership, dues-checkoff authorization as one card
and a benefit plan registration card as another card
33 Contrary to Respondents' contention , I do not find such statement by
Holley to be inconsistent with the logical consistency of all the facts.
34 Cross-examination of Reed revealed some unsureness of exactly what
Steinhauser said with reference to the cards As indicated previously, the
multiplicity of cards and events created some confusion in the witnesses'
recollection Considering the logical consistency of all of the clearly
to fill out. Debra Coleman inquired as to whether they did
not have time to think about the matter first. Steinhauser
replied in effect that she wanted them back as soon as
possible. Thereupon, Debra Coleman and Michelle Reed
signed the aforesaid cards and placed them on Steinhau-
ser's desk.34
(ff) Around the first of April 1970 and after a Local 1115
strike against Respondent Rockville, Supervisor Steinhau-
ser approached employee Tyrone Winder, gave him Local
1199 cards (application for membership, dues-checkoff
authorization , and benefit plan registration ), asked him to
sign said cards and to return them as soon as possible.
Winder took the aforesaid cards but did not sign them.
Later Supervisor Steinhauser asked Winder for the Local
1199 cards. Winder replied that he had lost them.
Supervisor Steinhauser asked Winder in effect to see if he
could find them, sign them, and return them.
Conclusion
Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude and find that
Respondent Rockville, during the months of January,
February, and March 1970, (1) required and solicited its
employees to sign cards designating Local 1199 as their
representatives for collective-bargaining purposes with an
object to induce said employees to support and assist
Respondent Local 1199 rather than any other labor
organization and (2) threatened its employees with
discharge and other reprisals if they did not become and
remain members of Respondent Local 1199 and if they did
not give assistance and support to it.
Such conduct is, as alleged, violative of Section 8(a)(1)
and (2) of the Act. It is so concluded and found.
D. Alleged Interrogation
The General Counsel in his complaint alleges that "on or
about February 14, 1970, Respondent Rockville, by Isaac
Putterman, the proprietor thereof, interrogated its employ-
ees concerning the employees' membership in, activities on
behalf of, and sympathy for Respondent Local 1199.1135
On February 14, 1970, Isaac Putterman sat down in the
Nursing Center with employees Carter, Kelly, Gibson and
Jennings.36 Putterman inquired of the employees as to
whether they had any grievances and told the employees to
feel free to come to him with their grievances, that his door
was always open. The conversation turned to the question
of unions when employee Gibson asked about a Local 1199
card which had her name on it. Putterman told the
employees in effect that a union was coming in, that Local
1199 was the Union and that it was best for him.37
Considering all of the foregoing, despite some conversa-
credited facts, I credit Coleman 's testimony to the facts as indicated, and
discredit Steinhauser 's denial.
31 The facts are based upon the credited aspects of the testimony of
Isaac Putterman , Kelly, Carter, and Jennings
36 The record refers to Gibson. The General Counsel' s brief indicates
that the correct spelling might be Gipson . The credited facts herein are
based upon the credited aspects of the testimony of Carter, Kelly, Gibson,
and Jennings.
37 Considering the logical consistency of all of the facts, I discredit
Jennings ' and Putterman 's testimony contradictory of the reference to
Local 1199 being the best for him.
ROCKVILLE NURSING CENTER 971
tion about Local 1199, I am not persuaded that Putterman's
intent , or the employees' evaluation of such intent, was to
do more than check into normal work problems and
grievances . Accordingly, I conclude and find that the
General Counsel has failed to establish illegal interrogation
as to union activities or desires of employees. Accordingly,
it will be recommended that this allegation of 8(a)(1) and
(2) conduct be dismissed.
Academically, it could be argued that Putterman's
expression of preference, under all the circumstances,
constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the Act. This is not the substance of the pleadings, and in
view of the overall scope of litigation, I do not find the
matter to be so litigated.
The only allegation of alleged unlawful interrogation
concerned the incident set forth above. I note that the
record reveals various inquiries by other supervisors as to
whether employees had signed Local 1199 cards. It is clear
that such evidence was adduced with reference to the issue
of urging and requiring employees to sign Local 1199 cards.
Because of the multiplicity of issues involved and the
pleadings, I am not persuaded that the issue of
"interrogation" was litigated as to such incidents. I note
also an incident wherein Supervisor Doton questioned
employee Morris about whether she had signed a Local
1115 card. I also note that Supervisor Doton told employee
Carter and others about this time that no one would be
fired for signing either a Local 1199 or Local 1115 card.
Again, considering the pleadings and manner of litigation, I
do not consider the incident to be a litigated issue of
"interrogation."
E. Permission to Local 1199 to Engage in Union
Solicitation to Conduct Union Meetings as Premise
Urging Employees to Attend Union Meetings
The General Counsel alleges in effect that: (1) on various
dates, presently unknown, during the months of January,
February, March, April, and May 1970, Respondent
Rockville permitted representatives of Respondent Local
1199 to solicit employees of Respondent Rockville to sign
cards designating Respondent Local 1199 as their repre-
sentative for collective-bargaining purposes and to conduct
other union business in Respondent Rockville's Nursing
Center during working hours and (2) on various dates,
presently unknown, during the month of December 1969
and the months of February, March, April, and May 1970,
Respondent Rockville urged and directed employees to
suspend their work and attend Respondent Local 1199
union meetings and paid such employees for the time spent
on such union business.
The facts relating to the foregoing allegations are as
follows: 38
38 The facts are based upon a composite of the credited aspects of the
testimony of all of the witnesses and the logical consistency of all the facts
Testimony of witnesses contradictory of the facts is discredited both upon
demeanor evaluation and as being contrary to logical consistency of the
facts Thus, I specifically discredit Jennings' testimony contradictory
thereof on the composite basis that the other witnesses appeared more
frank, forthright, and truthful and that her testimony is contrary to the
logical consistency of the facts Thus the facts are essentially based upon
the credited aspects of the testimony of Maxine Coleman , DeLaurentis,
1. On March 24, 1970, circa 3:30 p.m., Supervisor
Steinhauser in effect instructed employee Barnes to attend
a Respondent Local 1199 union meeting in the recreation
room of the Nursing Center. Barnes attended said meeting,
during his worktime and without loss of pay.
2. On March 24, 1970, Supervisors Doton and Fuller
told employee Wright, who was punching out to leave
work, that there was a Local 1199 union meeting being held
in the next room (recreation room).
3. On March 24, 1970, Supervisor Woodyear told
employee Ricks, who was working at the time, to attend a
Local 1199 union meeting in the Nursing Center recreation
room. A short time later, Woodyear asked Ricks if he were
going to attend the aforesaid union meeting. Ricks replied
in effect that he did not intend to attend said union
meeting. Whereupon, Woodyear told him to "go ahead" to
the meeting. Ricks, thereupon, attended said union meeting
for a few minutes.
4. On March 24, 1970, Supervisor Fuller approached
nurses aide Carter, who was checking in to start work.
Fuller told Carter in effect that Local 1199 was holding a
meeting in the recreation room. Carter attended the Local
1199 union meeting during her working hours and without
loss of pay.
5. On March 24, 1970, Supervisor Fuller approached
nurses aide Morris, who was checking in to start work.
Fuller told Morris not to forget that Local 1199 was holding
a union meeting in the recreation room. Morris attended
said Local 1199 union meeting, remained there for 1 hour
and received full pay for the time involved.
6. During the afternoon of March 24, 1970, Supervisor
Fuller approached LPN Lee as the latter was leaving work
and told her in effect that a Local 1199 union meeting was
going on in the recreation room and that it was important
to attend.
7. During the afternoon of March 24, 1970, Supervisor
Fuller in effect told employee Verdell Kelly that a Local
1199 union meeting was going on, that she should attend
this meeting, and that Supervisor Doton would "cover" her
floor in order that Kelly could go to the union meeting.
Kelly attended said union meeting and was paid for the
time in attendance.
8. Local 1199 conducted a union meeting at Respon-
dent Rockville's nursing facility on March 24, 1970. Said
union meeting was held in the recreation room, and was
attended by around 20 employees of Respondent Rockville.
At this meeting various Local 1199 officials spoke about
Local 1199 and its benefits. Organizer Kay told employees
of the various hospitalization and vacation benefits,
eligibility requirements, of the fact that Local 1199 had
been in at Respondent Rockville since January 1, 1970, and
Scurry, Parades, Kelly, Barnes, Reddick, Drucella Moore, Winder, Wright,
Lee, Nesbitt, Reed, and Dew, all who appeared as the most frank,
forthright, and truthful of witnesses Doton, Steinhauser, and Jennings'
testimony consistent with the facts found is credited. Doton, Steinhauser,
Jennings , and Gidney's testimony inconsistent with the facts found is
discredited As indicated, a composite of the credited aspects of the
witnesses ' testimony and the logical consistency of all facts found compel
the credibility resolutions herein
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the fact that there existed a signed contract between
Respondent Rockville and Local 1199.39
9. Around March 24, 1970, and thereafter, Local 1115
engaged in union organizational activity among Respon-
dent Rockville's employees. On March 31, 1970, Local
1115's President, DeLaurentis, and a number of Respon-
dent Rockville's employees presented themselves to
Schifter, Respondent Rockville's administrator, demanded
recognition as bargaining agent for Respondent Rockville's
employees, and tendered 58 signed Local 1115 union
authonzation cards as proof of 1115's majonty status.
Suffice it to say that Schifter did not recognize Local 1115
as bargaining representative but asserted that "I have a
union here."
Thereafter Local 1115 conducted a strike against
Respondent Rockville until April 9, 1970.'i°
10. On an occasion, around the time of a Local 1199
union meeting on the Nursing Center premises, Supervisor
Gidney told employee Reddick in effect about the union
meeting and stated that she could go, or not go, as she so
desired.
11. During the period of time April 9-30, 1970, Local
1199 Vice President Von Luther was present at the
Rockville Nursing Center approximately twice weekly. On
such occasions Von Luther spoke to various employees,
told them Local 1199 was the best union for them, urged
them to join Local 1199. On one such occasion Von Luther
told employee Kelly that she would be sorry if she did not
join Local 1199.
It is noted that the collective-bargaining contract
executed by Respondent Rockville and Respondent Local
1199 provides for visitation nghts at Respondent Rock-
ville's facility by Respondent Local 1199. Consistent with
such rights, Respondent Local 1199 held union meetings at
Respondent Rockville's facility on April 14 and 22, 1970,
and on May 13 and 27, 1970.
Suffice it to say that Respondent Local 1199 officials and
agents spoke at the aforesaid meeting of vanous benefits of
belonging to Local 1199, of its contractual arrangements
with Respondent Rockville, of the preexisting recognition
and contractual relationship between Respondent Rock-
ville and Local 1199, and requested employees to re-sign
Local 1199 union cards.
During the aforesaid union meetings held at Respondent
Rockville's facility, agents of Respondent Local 1199
threatened employees with discharge if they did not sign
Local 1199 union cards. Thus, on April 14, 1970, Dons
Turner, official of Local 1199, told employees in effect that
if they did not sign Local 1199 authorization cards by
Wednesday (April 15) that they would be fired,41 that it was
very unfair for employees to be working and not paying
dues and for other employees to be working and paying
dues. During the course of this meeting, a person, who
39 The question of "notices" for Local 1199's union meeting illustrates
how some of the "doubts" elicited by cross-examination are evaporated by
the facts as a whole Thus some of the General Counsel's witnesses on
cross-examination were questioned as to "notices " in the Center about
Local 1199's meetings Any doubt as to such notices was removed by
Respondent Local 1199's witness Jennings who testified to the effect that
meeting notices were placed on bulletin boards at the Nursing Center.
40 The facts relating to Local 1115's bargaining demand and the strike
are set forth more fully later in this Decision with respect to the "refusal to
appeared to be a representative of Local 1199, stated in
effect, in the presence of Local 1199 Agents Von Luther
and Turner, that employees who did not sign Local 1199
authorization cards would be in violation of Respondent
Rockville-Respondent Local 1199 contract.
Employees Nesbitt, Kelly, and Reed were among those
who attended the above April 14, 1970, Local 1199 meeting.
These employees did so during working hours and without
loss of pay.
At the May 13, 1970, Local 1199 union meeting at
Respondent Rockville's facility, Local 1199 Agent Turner
in effect repeated the threat that employees would be
discharged if they did not sign Local 1199 union cards (this
time) by May 20, 1970, repeated her remarks about
unfairness of some employees paying dues and some not
paying dues, and stated that the employees who were
members would not get a pay raise until everyone had
joined the Union. Turner adverted to the fact that most of
the current employees were not there when the January 9,
1970, collective-bargaining contract was signed.
At this meeting there were employees in attendance who
were on worktime and who received full pay for time in
attendance.
In relation to the Local 1199 union meetings in May 1970
at Respondent Rockville's facility, Local 1199 agents made
threats to employees that they would be discharged if they
did not sign Local 1199 union cards. Thus Drucella Moore,
who had been told that Jennings wanted to see her,
approached Jennings at the door of the recreation room on
an occasion in May when a Local 1199 union meeting was
in progress. On this occasion Jennings inquired as to
whether Moore wanted to attend said meeting. Moore
indicated that she did not want to attend but had to go back
to work. Jennings, a Local 1199 job steward since April
1970, told Moore that the members were tired of carrying
other employees, that if she did not join Local 1199, she
would lose her job.42 That evening or the next morning,
Moore questioned Local 1199 Agent Von Luther about this
threat. Von Luther did not answer her straight out but
impliedly confirmed the threat by saying, "I would hate to
see anyone lose their job." Upon being pushed for a
straight-out answer by Moore who asked again, "Is it true
that if you don't join 1199, you will lose your job?" Luther
again stated, "I still say, I hate to see anyone lose their job."
Moore stated, "When it comes to that time, just send me a
letter to that effect." To this Von Luther replied, "You will
be getting a letter." 43
In the early portion of May 1970, Local 1199 Shop
Steward Jennings approached LPN Lee in the Rockville
Nursing Center dining room and told her in effect that she
bargain" issue and to the "restraint and coercion" issue
41 It is noted that the Respondent Rockville-Respondent Local 1199
January 9, 1970, collective-bargaining agreement contained a union-
security clause
42 Moore appeared to be a more frank, forthnght , and truthful witness
than Jennings . I credit her testimony to the above effect and discredit
Jennings' testimony contradictory thereof.
43 The letter reference clearly refers to the contractual union -secunty
arrangement
ROCKVILLE NURSING CENTER 973
was going to be given a week within which to sign a Local
1199 authorization card.44 Lee asked Jennings what would
happen if she did not sign an authorization card. Jennings
told Lee in effect that she did not know, that Local 1199
was having a meeting that Wednesday and wanted all
union cards in by that Wednesday.
Conclusions
Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude and find, as
alleged, that, during the period of time March 24 through
May 1970, Respondent Rockville permitted Local 1199
union representatives to solicit employees to sign Local
1199 union authorization cards and to conduct other union
business on Respondent Rockville's premises during
working hours, and that Respondent Rockville's supervi-
sors urged and directed employees to suspend their work
and attend Respondent Local 1199 union meetings on
Respondent Rockville's premises, and paid such employees
for the time spent on such union business.
Such conduct, in context with the other violative conduct
found herein, clearly constituted unlawful aid and assist-
ance to Local 1199 by Respondent Rockville, and clearly
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights. Such conduct is violative
of Section 8(a)(l) and (2) of the Act. It is so concluded and
found.
F. Coercion
Dues
Dues Deduction
during the months of March, May, June, July, and August
1970. Dues deduction was withheld from one of such
employees for the month of April but deemed as an offset
for the month of May 1970. There is no contrary contention
and it is clear that such dues deductions were made upon
the basis of signed checkoff authorization cards consistent
with the collective-bargaining agreement of January 9,
1970.
Considering all of the foregoing: the unlawful recognition
of Local 1199 in December 1969; the unlawful contractual
recognition and agreement on January 9, 1970; the
widespread and deep involvement of Respondent Rock-
ville's aid and assistance in getting signatures from
employees to Local 1199 cards (membership, dues-checkoff
authorization, and benefit plan registration); and Respon-
dents' statements alluding to such union-security provi-
sions, it is clear that obtaining the dues-checkoff authoriza-
tions or continuing to honor them constituted coercive
conduct by Respondent Rockville which destroyed any
question of the voluntary nature of the dues-checkoff
authorization.
Accordingly, it is concluded and found that Respondent
Rockville engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1)
and (2) by requiring employees to execute and honor dues-
checkoff authorization cards and that the deduction of dues
from such employees during the months set forth above
constituted conduct also violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (2).
It is clear that such conduct unlawfully aided and assisted
Local 1199 and interfered with the employees' rights under
Section 7 of the Act. Such conduct is violative of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. It is so concluded and found.45
The General Counsel alleges in effect that Respondent
Rockville, pursuant to the January 9, 1970, contract with
Local 1199, since on or about March 31, 1970, required
employees covered by the contract to pay moneys,
including dues, to Respondent Local 1199, and that
Respondent Rockville, pursuant to said agreement, deduct-
ed such dues from the wages of certain employees pursuant
to said agreement.
The facts are simple and may be summarized as follows.
The January 9, 1970, collective-bargaining contract con-
tained essentially standard union-security provisions pro-
viding for membership in Local 1199 under such terms as a
condition for continuing employment. As has been
indicated, Respondent Rockville, after January 26, 1970,
maintained an open practice of securing employee
signatures to Local 1199 cards (application for member-
ship, dues-checkoff authorization, and benefit registration
plan). Further, employees were clearly alerted by union
officials and Respondent Rockville's supervisors' state-
ments , as of March 1970, to the union-security provisions.
The facts also clearly reveal that dues deductions (5 to
6.50 per month) were withheld from certain employees
44 1 found Lee to appear more frank, forthright, and truthful as a
witness . I credit her testimony to the above effect and discredit Jennings'
testimony contradictory thereof
45 On May 14 , 1970, Respondent Rockville and Respondent Local 1 199
received a petition signed by a number of employees requesting a return of
their dues on the grounds that they had been coerced into signing such
dues-checkoff authorization Such petition is consistent with the facts
G. Refusal To Bargain
The General Counsel alleges in effect that Respondent
Rockville, since on or about March 31, 1970, has refused to
recognize and to bargain collectively with Local 1115 as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Respon-
dent Rockville's employees in an alleged appropriate
bargaining unit.
The facts may be set forth as follows:
1. The appropriate collective-bargaining unit involved
is as herein set out:
All licensed practical nurses, nurses aides, orderlies,
dietary, housekeeping, laundry and maintenance em-
ployees of Respondent Rockville, employed at the
Nursing Center, exclusive of registered nurses , office
clerical employees, watchmen, guards and all supervi-
sors, as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
There is no issue as to the appropriateness of the
aforesaid unit. Based upon stipulations and pleadings and a
consideration of the unit on its face, I conclude and find
that the above unit constitutes an appropriate bargaining
unit within the meaning of the Act.
found and would be entitled to weight if necessary . Considering all of the
facts, however, I find it unnecessary to rely upon such evidence in making
the findings herein . Further in July 1970, employee Jennings circulated and
secured signatures to a petition asserting that Local 1199 was the choice of
the employees who signed said petition Considering the background of
unlawful assistance by Respondent Rockville in this case , I attach no
weight to such petition.
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The facts46 clearly reveal that as of March 31, 1970,
Respondent Rockville employed 74 employees in the
included categories of the above set-out appropriate
bargaining unit.
3. The facts further clearly reveal that as of March 31,
1970, Local 1115 was authorized by 58 of the 74 employed
employees of Respondent Rockville in the appropriate
bargaining unit to represent such employees in collective
bargaining. The overall evidence reveals these authoriza-
tions to be of a voluntary nature and to represent the
uncoerced intention of the employees involved.
4. On March 31, 1970,47 DeLaurentis, president and
secretary-treasurer for Local 1115, went to the Rockville
Nursing Center to make demand for recognition of Local
1115 as bargaining representative of Respondent Rock-
ville's employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.
What occurred is revealed by the following credited
excerpts from DeLaurentis' testimony:
A. I walked into Rockville Nursing Center with my
representative Mr. McCarthy, Mr. McKen, Mr. Nom-
berg and a group and committee of workers.
I walked into Rockville Nursing Center, went over to
the information window and asked for the owner or
administrator or whomever was in charge.
The lady said to me, "The administrator, Mr.
Schifter, is here. I will get him. Just a moment."
At that time Mr. Schifter, the lady coming out with
Mr. Schifter, came over to me, introduced himself as the
administrator, and gave me his name as Mr. Schifter.
In turn I introduced myself as Mr DeLaurentis,
president of Local 1115. And also introduced Bob
McCarthy, which was standing by me, and the other
representatives who were standing with the workers in
the lobby.
He says, "What is this all about?"
I says, "They are demonstrating. We are demonstrat-
ing that we have a majority of your employees and we
represent an overwhelming majority of your employees,
licensed practical nurses and non professional employ-
ees. We want union recognition and a contract. And we
are demonstrating that we do represent the people."
He said, "Come inside, I want to speak to you alone."
I says, "I will not speak to you alone, I will speak to
you with my representative and the committee of
workers."
He then took me into a room where there was tables
and chairs, a dining room. I thought it was a dining
room, there was tables and chairs there where people
would be sitting down to eat, and again, he says, "What
is this all about? I have a union here."
I says, "You have a union here but I have the people
here. I represent an overwhelming majority," and with
that, I took out the 60 applications or approximately 60
applications and put them on the table.
I says, "Here, count them. Check the signatures. I
represent these people. I want union recognition. I want
a contract."
He says, "How can you do that?" He says, "I have a
union here."
I says again, "You have a union, and I have the
people." And I said, "you can check these, if you want.
Count them. But you can't take them off the table, you
can't take them out of the room."
A. At this point, he said, "Just a minute. Why don't
you send the people back to work?"
I said, "The people are not going back to work until
we get a union recognition and a contract.
A. He says, "Just a minute." He went out of the
room. He came back and again, he requested to speak
to me alone. I says, "You can't speak to me alone, you
will have to speak to me with my representative and the
workers that are sitting here."
He says, "Put the people back to work."
I says, "I am not going to put the people back to work
until you give me a union recognition and a contract."
He stepped out of the room again. He come back. He
says, "I am waiting for Mr. Putterman to come in." So
he says to me, "Just a minute." He walked out again
and came back. With that, a police sergeant and a
couple of other officers walked in. They came over to
me and said, "You know you are trespassing on private
property, and you will have to leave."
I was very familiar with that. If I am asked to leave, I
will obey the law and I will leave. "It is up to Mr.
Schifter; if he wants me to leave, I will leave, but if I
leave, I am going to take my people with me."
At this point Mr. Schifter told the sergeant, "Just a
moment. Let them stay."
He went out again and came back. And he said,
"You will have to leave."
I says, "If I have to leave, I will leave, and with that, I
instructed my men to leave and the workers walked out
with me.
It may be noted that during the time of these events Isaac
Putterman was out of the country in Israel on vacation.
During the morning of March 31, 1970, Administrator
Schifter telephoned Arnold Putterman.48 Schifter advised
Arnold Putterman in effect that DeLaurentis had made a
demand for recognition with respect to Respondent
Rockville's service and maintenance employees, and
advised Arnold Putterman in substance of all that had
transpired including the presentation of Local 1115
authorization cards. Later on the same day Arnold
Putterman arrived at the Nursing Center and discussed the
events involved with Schifter.
Shortly after DeLaurentis and his followers had left
Schifter's office, Local 1115 set up a picket line at entrances
to the Nursing Center and maintained such picket line until
April 9, 1970.
On April 1, 1970, Arnold Putterman telephoned his
Is The facts are based upon stipulations and exhibits in the record authority was second only to Owner Isaac Putterman insofar as the
41 The facts are based upon a composite of the credited aspects of operation of Respondent Rockville's facility. The facts as to these
DeLaurentis and Arnold Putterman 's testimony telephone calls are based upon Arnold Putterman's credited testimony.
4s It is clear that Arnold Putterman 's supervisory and managerial
ROCKVILLE NURSING CENTER 975
father, Isaac Putterman, in Israel. Arnold Putterman
related in effect all that had transpired. Thereafter, Isaac
Putterman returned home from Israel . On April 3, 1970,
Arnold and Isaac Putterman again discussed what had
transpired concerning the Local 1115 (DeLaurentis)
demand for recognition.
On April 5, 1970, employee Jennings telephoned Isaac
Putterman and told him in effect that the Local 1115
situation was a result of misunderstanding , that she had
been a leader in getting the people to go out on strike on
March 31, 1970, and that she wanted to talk to him.
Putterman agreed to meet with her and her associates.
Jennings suggested instead that he come to her home. That
evening, Isaac Putterman met with Jennings at her home 49
At Jennings' home, Jennings told Isaac Putterman that
the Local 1115 episode and strike was a mistake, that the
employees had been misled and that the majority of the
employees were not in favor of Local 1115. Jennings told
Putterman in effect that she would get the employees to
quit the strike and return to work, asked Putterman not to
bargain with Local 1115, that if he did, they were going to
have more trouble.
Thereafter Jennings went to the picket line and started
talking to employees about returning to work. Some of the
employees returned to work on Tuesday, Jennings returned
to work on Wednesday, and most of the employees
returned to work on Thursday, April 6, 1970. The strike was
called off on April 9, 1970.
It is clear that Respondent Rockville never replied to
Local 1115's March 31, 1970, demand for recognition and
collective bargaining.
Conclusion
Considering all of the foregoing, it is clear that Local
1115 represented an uncoerced majority of the employees
in the appropriate bargaining unit, set out above, on March
3, 1970, that Local 1115 made a proper demand for
recognition and collective bargaining on March 31, 1970,
that such demand was properly communicated through
channels, through appropriate officials, and ultimately to
Isaac Putterman,50 and that Respondent Rockville has
refused and failed to recognize Local 1115 as the collective-
bargaining representative of its employees in the appropri-
ate bargaining unit.
The General Counsel contends in effect that under
principles of N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575,
the type of unfair labor practices involved herein warrants a
bargaining order remedy. The Respondents contend in
effect that the situation involved is essentially a two union
squabble and that recognition of Local 1115 under such a
situation would have been contrary to Respondent
Rockville's obligation to remain neutral.
Suffice it to say that were it not for Respondents'
contention as to the two union questions, the simple answer
would be that the General Counsel's contention is correct.
+9 The facts relating to Isaac Putterman 's and Jennings' conversations
are based upon a composite of the credited aspects of their testimony
50 Under such circumstances , I conclude and find that it is clear that
the demand to Schifter constituted an appropriate demand for bargaining
by Local 1115.
51 Considering the flagrant nature of Respondent Rockville's 8(a)(1)
The flagrant unlawful recognition and assistance given by
Respondent Rockville to Respondent Local 1199 coupled
with its continued illegal assistance and recognition by the
modification of the unlawful contract on May 19, 1970,
completely convinces that a remedy lacking a bargaining
order is insufficient to remedy the aspects of the unfair
labor practices 51
With respect to Respondents' contention as to the "two
union" dilemmas and its reliance upon the rationale in Mr.
Wick Ltd. Co., 172 NLRB No. 181, I find such contention
and reliance to be without merit. Suffice it to say that
Respondent Rockville's conduct in this case reveals a much
more flagrant disregard for the law or employee rights than
did the Respondent in the Mr. Wick case. Further, in this
case, Respondent Rockville, after demand for recognition
by Local 1115, reiterated its recognition of Local 1199 and
its assistance to Local 1199 by "bargaining" as to certain
employee interests, giving concessions thereto, and in such
regard agreeing to an amendment on May 19, 1970, to its
January 9, 1970, contract with Local 1199.
Further, Respondent Rockville's deep involvement in the
solicitation of signatures to Local 1199 cards, and the
surrounding circumstances thereto, completely persuades
that Respondent Rockville knew that Local 1199 did not
represent an uncoerced majority of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit. In fact, the facts persuade that
Respondent Rockville would know that all if not virtually
all of Local 1199's authorization cards were tainted by its
unlawful assistance . Under such circumstances , it is clear
that Respondent Rockville knew that there was not a
legitimate conflicting demand for representation by Local
1199.
I note particularly that Respondent Rockville had no
basis for believing that there was a legitimate conflicting
demand by Local 1199 even assuming the statements by
Jennings on April 3, 1970, to Putterman. At most, under all
the circumstances, Isaac Putterman would have realized
that any viewpoint of Jennings was colored by all of the
preceding events, including its unlawful 8(a)(1) and (2)
conduct, that therefore there was not an objective basis to
accord validity to any claim by Local 1199, and that
statements of being "misled" by Local 1115 were being
made by an employee who coercively believed Respondent
Rockville wanted Local 1199 as the bargaining agent for
employees.
Finally, under all of the circumstances, I am persuaded
that Respondent Rockville reasonably would believe that
the tender of authorization cards by Local 1115 for
examination would reveal that an uncoerced majority of
employees had selected Local 1115. This, in context of
Respondent Rockville's unlawful assistance , clearly would
eliminate any question of doubt as to Local 1115's majority
status . Under these circumstances, I am convinced that
Respondent Rockville had no doubt of Local 1115's status
as majority representative of its employees.
Considering all of the foregoing, I find it clear that
and (2) misconduct , the continuing nature thereof as revealed by the
bargaining and modification of the January 9, 1970 , contract on May 19,
1970, 1 find it unnecessary to evaluate the impact of Respondent Local
1199's 8(bXIXA) misconduct upon the question of the refusal to bargain
and remedy issue thereto
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent Rockville refused to recognize and bargain
with Local 1115, on and after March 30, 1970, within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Such conduct
is violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. It is so
concluded and found.
H. Respondent Local 1199s Threats on Picket Line
The General Counsel's complaint alleged in effect that
Respondent Local 1199's agents, on or about Apnl 3 and 4,
1970, in the presence of Respondent Rockville's employees,
threatened employees and officers and agents of Local 1115
with bodily injury and harm.
The credited facts overwhelmingly support the allega-
tions . Suffice it to say that the facts may be summarized as
follows: 52
As indicated previously, Local 1115 maintained a picket
line at Respondent Rockville's premises from March 31,
1970, to April 9, 1970
On the morning of April 3, 1970, Union Organizer
DeLaurentis and a number of Nursing Center employees
were manning the aforesaid picket line. Around noon,
Respondent Local 1199 Vice President Von Luther and
around 15 other persons appeared at the picket line and
surged toward it. On this occasion Respondent Local 1199
Vice President Von Luther spoke to DeLaurentis. Von
Luther stated "You-I am going to get you, I am going to
kill you, I am going to wipe the streets with you."
At one point during the foregoing events Von Luther told
some of the picketing employees in effect that they should
go back to work, that they would lose theirjobs if they did
not go back to work, that Local 1115 would walk away and
that they would be without ajob at the Nursing Center.
Suffice it to say that many other statements were made by
Von Luther and others, that the foregoing event terminated
after police intervention and Von Luther returned again
and other statements were directed to DeLaurentis and the
striking employees, that there was again police intervention
resulting in Von Luther and his supporters leaving to go
into the Nursing Center. As Von Luther was leaving he
stated, "We will be back, we will get you." Later on the
same day, Respondent Vice President Von Luther ap-
proached DeLaurentis, and in the presence of picketing
employees told DeLaurentis in effect that he was going to
wipe the streets with him, that he was going to kick the stuff
out of him.
On the next day, similar conduct occurred at the picket
line. On one occasion, two women who had been
participating in 1199 union activity toward DeLaurentis
and the pickets, pointed out DeLaurentis to Respondent
Local 1199 Vice President Von Luther and Respondent
Local 1199 Organizer Cyril Langheed. These two women
stated in effect that DeLaurentis had insulted them.
Thereupon, Von Luther ran toward DeLaurentis and told
him in effect that he was going to get him, cursed him by
name calling, and told him that he was going to put him in a
meat grinder and grind him up. In this incident Von Luther
chased DeLaurentis into the street and, during the incident,
told employees that if they stayed out with that "white
man" they were going to get hurt. Again police intervention
restored order. After Von Luther and others left on this
occasion they entered Respondent Rockville's facilities.
From a window in the Rockville Nursing Center, Von
Luther yelled toward DeLaurentis that they were going to
get him.
On another occasion on the same day, Respondent Local
1199 Vice President Von Luther challenged DeLaurentis, in
the presence of pickets, to "come around the corner" and
talk. On the next day, Respondent Local 1199 Vice
President Von Luther, in the presence of pickets, told
DeLaurentis in effect that he was "going to get"
DeLaurentis.
Although the facts may be summarized as set forth, I note
that the testimony revealed much name calling and appeal
to racial prejudice by Respondent Local 1199's agents.
Considering the allegations and the clear establishment of
such allegations by the foregoing, I find it unnecessary to
detail the facts otherwise or to consider the significance of
appeals to racial prejudice.
Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude and find that
the General Counsel has clearly established that Respon-
dent Local 1199's agents threatened employees and
threatened DeLaurentis, an agent of Local 1115, in the
presence of employee pickets, with bodily harm and injury,
on or about April 3 and 4, 1970, as alleged. Such conduct is
violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.53
1. Respondent Local 1199s Threats of Discharge
The General Counsel alleges in effect that Respondent
Local 1199, on or about April 14, 1970, and May 13, 1970,
by Agents Turner, Von Luther, and Jennings, threatened
employees of Rockville Nursing Center with discharge in
order to induce them to aid and support Local 1199 and to
renounce their adherence to and to abandon their support
of Local 1115.
The facts relating to the above issue have been
substantially set out in section E, above. Suffice it to say
that the facts clearly establish that Turner, Von Luther, and
Jennings, as alleged, in Apnl and May 1970 spoke to
employees about signing Local 1199 authorization cards,
and threatened employees that if they did not sign such
Local 1199 authorization cards by certain dates they would
be discharged.
As indicated previously, the facts clearly establish that at
the April 14, 1970, Local 1199 union meeting54 Respondent
Local 1199 Executive Vice President Turner threatened
that employees of Respondent Rockville would be
discharged if they had not signed Local 1199 authorization
cards by April 15, 1970, that at the same union meeting, a
person with Turner and Von Luther, in their presence and
without contradiction, told employees in effect that if they
did not sign Local 1199 union cards, they would be in
violation of the January 9, 1970, contract between
52 The facts are based upon the credited aspects of the composite union business on company time also reveal threats of discharge by
testimony of Lee , Parades, Drucella Moore, DeLaurentis , Morris, Winder, Respondent Local 1199's agents which constitute conduct violative of
and Wright. Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act Such facts have been considered in
53 W T Smith Lumber Company, 116 NLRB 507 I note that the facts connection with the findings and conclusions above
relating to Respondent 's conduct in permitting Local 1199 to conduct 54 Held on Respondent Rockville's premises
ROCKVILLE NURSING CENTER 977
Respondent Local 1199 and Respondent Rockville. The
facts also clearly reveal that Respondent Local 1199
Executive Vice President Turner, at the May 13, 1970,
Local 1199 union meeting,55 threatened employees of
Respondent Rockville that they would be fired if they did
not sign Local 1199 authorization cards by the following
Wednesday; that in May 1970, Vice President Von Luther
in a statement to employee Drucella Moore threatened that
employees of Respondent Rockville would be fired if they
did not sign Local 1199 authorization cards; and that Local
1199 Shop Steward Jennings, in May 1970, in a statement
to employee Lee, threatened that employees of Rockville
Nursing Center would suffer reprisals if they did not sign
Local 1199 authorization cards.
Considering all of the foregoing, I conclude and find, as
alleged, that Respondent Local 1199, on or about April 14
and May 13, 1970, threatened employees with discharge if
they did not sign Local 1199 authorization cards. It is
further clear from the foregoing and all of the facts in the
case that Respondent Local 1199's objective in such threats
was to induce the employees of Respondent Rockville to
aid and assist Local 1199. Such conduct is clearly violative
of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. It is so concluded and
found.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent Rock-
ville's operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
therefore be recommended that Respondents jointly and
severally reimburse such employees, with 6 percent interest
thereon, for whom dues were deducted pursuant to the
unlawful contract involved, which included union-security
provisions.56 It is noted that Respondent Rockville has
segregated such funds and has kept them for Local 1199.
However, I find it proper to direct the requirement of
reimbursement by both Respondents since such dues
deductions were pursuant to the unlawful contractual
arrangement. In any event, if such funds remain segregated,
compliance by Respondent Rockville will eliminate need
for compliance on this point by Respondent Local 1199.
Having found that Respondent Rockville has refused to
bargain collectively with Local 1115, it will be recommend-
ed that Respondent Rockville bargain upon request with
Local 1115 as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit found herein.
This bargaining order is deemed warranted because of the
widespread and flagrant nature of Respondent's conduct
found herein and the continuing nature and reiteration of
such conduct by its modification of its unlawful contract on
May 19, 1970. Such conduct precluded a fair election
among employees and becomes necessary to remedy all of
the unfair labor practices 57
Because of the character and scope of the unfair labor
practices herein found, the recommended Order will
provide that Respondent Rockville cease and desist from in
any other manner interfering with, restraining, and
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act. Similarly, the recommended
Order will provide that Respondent Local 1199 cease and
desist from in any other manner restraining and coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that
Respondents cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent Rockville has
illegally recognized and entered into an illegal collective-
bargaining agreement with Respondent Local 1199, it will
be recommended that Respondent Rockville withdraw and
withhold recognition from Respondent Local 1199 unless
and until Local 1199 is certified by the Board, and that
Respondents cease giving effect to the existing collective-
bargaining agreement between them (the January 9, 1970,
agreement as modified by this May 19, 1970, agreement).
Provision, however, shall be made to safeguard any benefit
which the employees received under said contract.
It has been found that Respondents' conduct coerced
employees in the execution of dues-checkoff authorization
cards and in the continued honoring of such cards, it will
55 Held on Respondent Rockville's premises
56 The record contains exhibits setting forth the names of such
employees and the dues deducted (G C Exh 36) Such exhibit is
incorporated by reference herein
57 Respondents at the trial of this matter seem to be contending a
"clean hands" doctrine argument Thus they appear to argue that
DeLaurentis , for Local 1115, had tried to get Respondent Rockville in the
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Isaac Putterman, d/b/a Rockville Nursing Center,
the Respondent Employer, is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. Guild of Professional, Technical and Office Employ-
ees, Local 1199, Drug & Hospital Union, RWDSU,
AFL-CIO, the Respondent Union, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Local 1115, Nursing Home, Senior Citizens Hotel
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
4. All licensed practical nurses , nurses aides, orderlies,
dietary, housekeeping, laundry and maintenance employ-
ees of Isaac Putterman, d/b/a Rockville Nursing Center,
employed at the Nursing Center, exclusive of registered
nurses, office clerical employees, watchmen , guards, and all
last months of 1969 to enter into an unlawful recognition of his Union.
Suffice it to say, assuming such facts, such unlawful arrangement was not
entered into The facts in this case clearly reveal that the employees
voluntarily selected Local 1115 as their bargaining agent. Respondent's
argument as to such alleged December 1969 conduct is completely
irrelevant to the issues of this case.
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. At all times since March 31, 1970, and continuing to
date, Local 1115, Nursing Home, Hospital, Senior Citizens
Hotel Union has been the representative, for purposes of
collective bargaining, of the employees in the unit described
above and, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been,
and is now, the exclusive representative of the employees in
said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, the Respondent has engaged in conduct violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. By recognizing Respondent Local 1199 as exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in December
1969, when in fact Respondent Local 1199 was not the
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, by,
similarly on January 9, 1970, executing a collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 1199 which included, inter
alia, union-security and dues-checkoff authorization provi-
sions and provisions for financial contributions by the
employees to Respondent Local 1199, by actively soliciting,
urging, and directing employees to execute Local 1199
cards (application for membership, dues-checkoff authori-
zation, and benefit plan registration), by permitting union
solicitation and union meetings to be held on its premises,
by paying employees for time in attendance at union
meetings , by deducting dues from employees' wages for
Local 1199, by making payments to Local 1199's benefit
plan, Respondent Isaac Putterman, d/b/a Rockville
Nursing Center, has assisted, and contributed financial and
other support to Local 1199 in violation of Section 8(a)(2)
and (3) of the Act.
8. By refusing on March 31, 1970, and thereafter to
recognize and bargain with Local 1115, Nursing Home,
Senior Citizens Hotel Union, as exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees in their appropriate
bargaining unit, described above, Respondent Isaac
Putterman, d/b/a Rockville Nursing Center, has refused to
bargain with Local 1115 as such representative in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
9. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent
Local 1199 has engaged in conduct violative of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
10. By accepting recognition, in December 1969, as an
exclusive bargaining representative of employees, when in
fact it was not the exclusive bargaining representative of
such employees, by entering into a collective-bargaining
agreement, on January 9, 1970, under such circumstances,
by entering into such collective-bargaining agreement
which included union-security provisions, dues-checkoff
authorization provisions, and provisions relating to finan-
cial contributions by the Employer to Local 1199,
Respondent Local 1199 has engaged in conduct violative of
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
11. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 58
A. Respondent Isaac Putterman, d/b/a Rockville
Nursing Center, his officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting or contributing support to Guild of
Professional, Technical and Office Employees, Local 1199,
Drug & Hospital Union, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, or to any
other labor organization.
(b) Encouraging membership in Respondent Local 1199,
or in any other labor organization, by entering into or
enforcing any union-security agreement made in violation
of the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) Recognizing or continuing to recognize Respondent
Local 1199 as the exclusive representative of the employees
referred to in its January 9, 1970, contract with Respondent
Local 1199, or as the exclusive representative of the
appropriate bargaining unit described below, unless and
until such labor organization shall have been certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as such representative.
(d) Performing or giving effect to, enforcing or attempt-
ing to enforce the collective-bargaining contract entered
into on January 9, 1970, with Respondent Local 1199, or to
any extension, renewal, or modification thereof, or to any
other collective-bargaining agreement or understanding
with Respondent Local 1199 which may now be in effect,
provided, however, that nothing in this Decision shall
require Respondent Rockville to vary or abandon any
wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive feature of its
relations with its employees which the Company has
established in the performance of this contract, or to
prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights they may
have thereunder, as long as they are not inconsistent with
this Decision.
(e) Permitting representatives of Respondent Local 1199
to conduct union business in the Nursing Center during
working hours.
(f) Urging or directing employees in the Nursing Center
to suspend their work and attend union meetings of
Respondent Local 1199 or paying such employees for the
time spent on such union business.
(g) Requiring or soliciting employees to sign cards
designating Respondent Local 1199 as their representative
for collective-bargaining purposes.
(h) Threatening its employees with discharge or other
reprisals if they do not become or remain members of
Respondent Local 1199, or if they do not give any
assistance or support to it.
(i) Giving effect to any dues-checkoff authorization cards
heretofore obtained from any of its employees on behalf of
58 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the become its findings , conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall , as provided in be deemed waived for all purposes
ROCKVILLE NURSING CENTER 979
Respondent Local 1199, or making any dues deduction
therefor from such employees on behalf of Respondent
Local 1199.
(1) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 1115,
Nursing Home, Hospital, Senior Citizens Hotel Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of em-
ployees in the appropriate bargaining unit below in regard
to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment. The
appropriate bargaining unit is:
All licensed practical nurses, nurses aides, orderlies,
dietary, housekeeping, laundry and maintenance em-
ployees of Isaac Putterman, d/b/a Rockville Nursing
Center, employed at the Nursing Center, exclusive of
registered nurses, office clerical employees, watchmen,
guards and all supervisors, as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act.
(k) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by lawful agreements in accord
with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition of Respondent
Local 1199 as the representative of its employees in the
units described above in 1(b) for the purpose of dealing
with Isaac Putterman, d/b/a Rockville Nursing Center
with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment unless and until said labor organization shall
have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as the exclusive representative of such employees.
(b) Reimburse its employees for dues or other moneys
unlawfully checked off for Respondent Local 1199, in the
manner and to the extent set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 1115,
Nursing Home, Hospital, Senior Citizens Hotel Union as
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate collective-bargaining unit set
forth above, and, if an understanding is reached, and if
requested, embody such understanding in a signed
contract.
(d) Post at its place of business in Rockville Centre, Long
Island, New York, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A."59 Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly
signed by Respondent Employer's representative, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Mail signed copies of the aforesaid notice to all former
employees who worked for Respondent Employer at any
time between December 25, 1969, to date.
(f) Preserve and make available to the Board, or its
agents, all personnel records and payroll records necessary
to determine the names and addresses of all employees who
worked at any time between December 25, 1969, to date.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith 60
B. Respondent Guild of Professional, Technical and
Office Employees, Local 1199, Drug & Hospital Union,
RWDSU, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Performing, giving effect to, enforcing or attempting
to enforce, the collective-bargaining contract entered into
on or about January 9, 1970, with Respondent Isaac
Putterman, d/b/a Rockville Nursing Center, herein called
Respondent Rockville, or to any extention, renewal, or
modification thereof, or to any other collective-bargaining
contract, agreement, or understanding with Respondent
Rockville which may not be in effect.
(b) Acting as the exclusive bargaining representative for
the bargaining unit described in the aforesaid January 9,
1970, collective-bargaining contract or as exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the licensed practical nurses,
nurses aides, orderlies, dietary, housekeeping, laundry and
maintenance employees employed at the Nursing Center by
Respondent Rockville for the purpose of dealing with
Respondent Rockville concerning wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment,
unless and until Respondent Local 1199 shall have been
certified by the National Labor Relations Board as such
exclusive representative.
(c) Attempting to force or require or forcing or requiring
Respondent Rockville to recognize Respondent Local 1199,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees,
in the bargaining units described above, unless and until
Respondent Local 1199 shall have been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as such exclusive repre-
sentative.
(d) Threatening employees of Respondent Rockville and
in the presence of employees of Respondent Rockville
threatening officers, agents, and representatives of Local
1115, Nursing Home, Hospital, Senior Citizens Hotel
Union with bodily injury or other harm to their person if
said employees did not become or remain members of
Respondent Local 1199, or if they did not give assistance
and support to it.
(e) Threatening employees of Respondent Rockville that
Respondent Local 1199 would cause their discharge by
Respondent Rockville if said employees did not become or
remain members of Respondent Local 1199, or if they did
not give assistance or support to it.
(f) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees
of Respondent Rockville in the exercise of the rights
59 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a 80 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read-
order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days
"Posted pursuant to a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to
enforcing an order of the National Labor Relations Board." comply herewith "
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by lawful agreements in accord
with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Reimburse each of Respondent Rockville's employees
for dues or other moneys unlawfully checked off for
Respondent Local 1199, in the manner and to the extent set
forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Respondent Rockville not to give effect to any
checkoff authorizations to Local 1199 heretofore obtained
from any of Respondent Rockville's employees.
(c) Post at its offices and meeting places copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B."61 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 29, after being duly signed by Local 1199's
representative, shall be posted by Local 1199 immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Mail signed copies of the aforesaid notice marked
"Appendix B" to the Regional Director for Region 29 for
posting by Respondent Rockville, in conspicuous places, at
its Nursing Center in Rockville Centre, New York,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, shall be
returned forthwith to said Regional Director, after they
have been signed by an official representative of Respon-
dent Local 1199 for such posting.
(e) Mail copies of such notice, "Appendix B," to all
former employees who worked for Respondent Rockville at
any time between December 25, 1969, to date.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent Local 1199 has taken to comply
herewith.62
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint
allegations as to the conduct not specifically found to be
violative herein he dismissed.
Br In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted pursuant to a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
62 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing , within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Respondent
Local 1199, or in any other labor organization, by
entering into or enforcing any union-security agreement
made in violation of the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully assist or contribute support
to Guild of Professional, Technical, and Office
Employees, Local 1199, Drug & Hospital Union,
RWDSU, AFL-CIO, or to any other labor organiza-
tion.
WE WILL NOT recognize or continue to recognize
Respondent Local 1199 as the exclusive representative
of the employees referred to in its January 9, 1970,
contract with Respondent Local 1199, or as the
exclusive representative of the appropriate bargaining
unit described below, unless and until such labor
organization shall have been certified by the National
Labor Relations Board as such representative.
WE WILL NOT perform or give effect to, enforce or
attempt to enforce the collective-bargaining contract
entered into on January 9, 1970, with Respondent Local
1199, or to any extension , renewal, or modification
thereof, or to any other collective-bargaining agreement
or understanding with Respondent Local 1199 which
may now be in effect providing, however, that nothing
in this Decision should require Respondent Rockville to
vary or abandon any wages, hours, seniority, or other
substantive feature of its relations with its employees
which the Company has established in the performance
of this contract, or to prejudice the assertion by
employees of any rights they may have thereunder,
excepting where inconsistent with the provisions of this
Decision and Order.
WE WILL NOT permit representatives of Respondent
Local 1199 to conduct union business in the Nursing
Center during working hours.
WE WILL NOT urge or direct employees in the Nursing
Center to suspend their work and attend union meetings
of Respondent Local 1199 or pay such employees for
the time spent on such union business.
WE WILL NOT require or solicit employees to sign
cards designating Respondent Local 1199 as their
representative for collective-bargaining purposes.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge
or other reprisals if they do not become or remain
members of Respondent Local 1199, or if they do not
give any assistance or support to it.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any checkoff authoriza-
tion cards heretofore obtained from any of our
employees on behalf of Respondent Local 1199, or
make any dues deduction therefor from such employees
on behalf of Respondent Local 1199.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Local 1115, Nursing Home, Hospital, Senior Citizens
Hotel Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of employees in the appropriate bargain-
ing unit below, in regard to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All licensed practical nurses, nurses aides, order-
lies, dietary, housekeeping, laundry and mainte-
ROCKVILLE NURSING CENTER
nance employees of Isaac Putterman, d/b/a
Rockville Nursing Center, employed at the
Nursing Center, exclusive of registered nurses,
office clerical employees, watchmen, guards and
all supervisors, as defined in Section 2(11) of the
Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by lawful
agreements in accord with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition of
Respondent Local 1199 as the representative of its
employees in the units described above for the purpose
of dealing with Isaac Putterman, d/b/a Rockville
Nursing Center, with respect to grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or
other conditions of employment unless and until said
labor organization shall have been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
representative of such employees.
WE WILL reimburse each of our employees for dues
or other moneys unlawfully checked off for Respondent
Local 1199, in the manner and to the extent set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
WE WILL upon request, bargain collectively with
Local 1115, Nursing Home, Hospital, Senior Citizens
Hotel Union as exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of our employees in the appropriate collective-
bargaining unit set forth above, and, if an understand-
ing is reached, and if requested, embody such
understanding in a signed contract.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain
from becoming or remaining, members of any labor
organization, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by a lawful agreement in accordance with Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
ISAAC PUTTERMAN, D/B/A
ROCKVILLE NURSING
CENTER
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Fourth
Floor, 16 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201,
Telephone 212-596-3535.
APPENDIX B
981
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Guild of Professional, Technical and Office Employees,
Local 1199, Drug & Hospital Union, RWDSU, AFL-CIO
We hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT perform, give effect to, enforce or
attempt to enforce, the collective-bargaining contract
entered into on or about January 9, 1970, with
Respondent Isaac Putterman, d/b/a Rockville Nursing
Center, herein called Respondent Rockville, or to any
extension, renewal, or modification thereof, or to any
other collective-bargaining contract, agreement, or
understanding with Respondent Rockville which may
now be in effect.
WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive bargaining
representative for the bargaining unit described in the
aforesaid January 9, 1970, collective-bargaining con-
tract or as exclusive bargaining representative of the
licensed practical nurses, nurses aides, orderlies,
dietary, housekeeping, laundry and maintenance em-
ployees employed at the Nursing Center by Isaac
Putterman, d/b/a Rockville Nursing Center, for the
purpose of dealing with Respondent Isaac Putterman,
d/b/a Rockville Nursing Center, concerning wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, unless and until Local 1199 shall have
been certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as such exclusive representative.
WE WILL NOT attempt to force or require or force or
require Isaac Putterman, d/b/a Rockville Nursing
Center, to recognize Local 1199, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees, in the
bargaining units described above, unless and until
Local 1199 shall have been certified by the National
Labor Relations Board as such exclusive representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees of Isaac Putter-
man, d/b/a Rockville Nursing Center and in the
presence of employees of Isaac Putterman, d/b/a
Rockville Nursing Center, threaten officers, agents, and
representatives of Local 1115, Nursing Home, Hospital,
Senior Citizens Hotel Union with bodily injury or other
harm to their person if such employees do not become
or remain members of Local 1199, or if they do not give
assistance and support to it.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees of Respondent
Rockville that Local 1199 will cause their discharge by
Isaac Putterman, d/b/a Rockville Nursing Center, if
said employees do not become or remain members of
Local 1199, or if they do not give assistance or support
to it.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees of Isaac Putterman, d/b/a Rockville Nurs-
ing Center, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by lawful agreements in accord with
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse each of Isaac Putterman, d/b/a
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rockville Nursing Center, employees for their dues or
other moneys unlawfully checked off for Local 1199, in
the manner and to the eXtent set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
WE WILL notify Respondent Isaac Putterman, d/b/a
Rockville Nursing Center, not to give effect to any
checkoff authorizations to Local 1199 heretofore
obtained from any of Isaac Putterman, d/b/a Rockville
Nursing Center, employees.
GUILD OF PROFESSIONAL,
TECHNICAL AND OFFICE
EMPLOYEES , LOCAL 1199,
DRUG & HOSPITAL UNION,
RWDSU , AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Fourth
Floor, 16 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201,
Telephone 212-596-3535.